Copyright by Kristen Courtney Wilkerson 2003
The Dissertation Committee for Kristen Courtney Wilkerson certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation:
Cyber-Campaigning for Congress: A Cultural Analysis of House Candidate Web Sites
Committee:
Gary B. Wilcox, Supervisor
Sharon E. Jarvis, Co-Supervisor
Neal M. Burns
Deborah K. Morrison
Jef I. Richards
Cyber-Campaigning for Congress: A Cultural Analysis of House Candidate Web Sites
by
Kristen Courtney Wilkerson, B.A., M.A.
Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
The University of Texas at Austin May 2003 Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated, first and foremost, to my husband, David.
Throughout the research process, he never ceased to provide intelligent thoughts, constant encouragement, and an eager ear. There is no doubt that without his love and support, I could not have completed such a daunting task.
I would also like to express heartfelt thanks to my father and mother,
Tom and Jo Earnhart, for their constant love and never-ending faith in me. No matter which paths I've chosen in life -- and there have been a few -- they have never once questioned my choices or my abilities. I am so very grateful to be their daughter.
And finally, thank you to my yellow Labrador, Simon, for sitting patiently at my feet, being a good boy (most of the time), and keeping me company during countless hours of research. Acknowledgements
There are several intelligent, kind, and persistent faculty members who took the time and energy to see this dissertation to completion. Without their advice and counsel, I would likely still be trying to choose a topic. I would first like to thank my Committee Supervisor, Dr. Gary Wilcox, for allowing me to write my dissertation from afar, and for gently but consistently keeping me on the right track. A very special thank you also goes to my Co- Supervisor, Dr. Sharon Jarvis of Communication Studies, who generously crossed departmental lines to guide me through the dissertation process by offering valuable insight, reading endless drafts, and providing much-needed motivation. I also wish to express my deepest gratitude to the other three members of my Committee: Dr. Neal Burns, an unbelievably brilliant man who never stopped pushing me to proudly accept my strengths and humbly improve upon my weaknesses; Dr. Deborah Morrison, whom I enjoyed working with so much (how did I win that coveted assistantship?) and who always reminded me to take my vitamins; and finally, Dr. Jef Richards, the first faculty member I met upon arriving at the University of Texas at Austin, and the one I often turned to at moments of crisis or concern during my studies. The guidance, time, and knowledge of these individuals have proven invaluable. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my three independent coders and fellow University of Texas students, Taylor Falls, Austin Gilliland, and Krista Kiecke, who spent countless hours ensuring that this research was performed both
v ethically and reliably. I am very grateful for their kindness, intelligence, and dedication to this project.
vi Cyber-Campaigning for Congress: A Cultural Analysis of House Candidate Web Sites
Publication No.______
Kristen Courtney Wilkerson, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin, 2003 Supervisor: Gary B. Wilcox Co-Supervisor: Sharon E. Jarvis
Largely inspired by the evolution of political advertising over the last several years, this dissertation examines the rapidly changing relationship between campaign communication and the Internet. More specifically, the study explores, through a cultural lens, how politics and politicians are being packaged and presented on the World Wide Web at the dawn of the 21st century. Working under the assumption that Web sites function as part of an overall political campaign strategy, this research employs a series of thirteen in-depth interviews with political Web designers and a content analysis of 145 campaign sites (as well as a comparison of those sites to 118 legislative sites) to examine the online
vii advertising strategies of Congressional candidates, and their implications for political campaigns and public life in the United States.
Based upon the theory that campaign advertising, more than any other form of political communication, encourages important dialogue and interaction between candidates and their audiences, this study predicted that the campaign sites of U.S. House candidates would be superior to the official government sites of sitting Representatives in three key areas: information, creativity, and technology. Due to the competitive nature of campaigns, it was also expected that candidates' sites would feature more partisan content and more references to political opposition. Results of the present research indicate that while campaign sites included more technology, more partisan content, and more political opposition, legislative sites were slightly more informative and creative.
Additionally, it was found that the sites of Republicans and incumbent candidates generally displayed higher frequencies in each category than those of Democrats and challengers.
viii Table of Contents
List of Tables...... xiii
List of Figures...... xiv
List of Illustrations...... xv
Chapter 1: Introduction...... 1 Current Research on Web Campaigning ...... 4 Study Purpose ...... 4 Data and Methods ...... 5 Interviews ...... 6 Content Analysis ...... 7 Organization of the Dissertation ...... 8
Chapter 2: The World of Politics Meets the World Wide Web ...... 10 Politics on the Web ...... 11 Political Advertising on the Web: A Cultural Approach ...... 23 Cultural Theory ...... 23 Advertising from Ancient Greece to Modern-day America ...... 25 Benefits of Using a Cultural Approach ...... 27 Advertising and Culture ...... 28 Communication Studies, Political Science, and Culture ...... 30 Politicians on the Web ...... 33 Legislator Web Sites ...... 34 Candidate Web Sites ...... 39 Political Advertising and Advancements in Information Technologies .....44 Current Study ...... 46 Background ...... 46
ix Contribution ...... 47 Summary ...... 49 Hypotheses ...... 51
Chapter 3 Methodology ...... 53 Measurement Criteria ...... 54 Information Content ...... 54 Creative Content...... 56 Technological Content ...... 58 Partisan Content ...... 60 Political Opposition ...... 61 Interviews ...... 63 Sample and Procedure ...... 64 Content Analysis ...... 71 Sample and Procedure ...... 72
Chapter 4 The Creative Minds Behind the Sites ...... 79 The Role of Advertising Creatives on the Web ...... 80 Previous Research on Advertising Creatives ...... 81 Advertising Creatives and Culture ...... 83 Findings ...... 86 Development of Site Content...... 87 Site Maintenance ...... 89 Most Important Site Function ...... 91 Site Integration ...... 97 Additional Areas of Interest ...... 101 Most Effective Sites...... 101 Site Features to Avoid ...... 104 Future Role of the Web in Political Campaigns...... 105 Implications ...... 107
x Chapter 5 Information, Creativity, and Technology on Congressional Sites...... 113 Practices of Candidates and Legislators ...... 115 Information Content on Campaign and Legislative Web Sites ...... 117 Information Content by Incumbency...... 127 Information Content by Party ...... 129 Creative Content on Campaign and Legislative Web Sites ...... 131 Creative Content by Incumbency...... 136 Creative Content by Party ...... 136 Technological Content on Campaign and Legislative Web Sites ...... 138 Technological Content by Incumbency...... 141 Technological Content by Party ...... 142 Standout Sites ...... 144 Information Content on the Site of Richard Burr ...... 145 Creative Content on the Site of Ander Crenshaw ...... 147 Technological Content on the Site of Stephanie Sanchez ...... 149 Discussion ...... 150 Incumbents and Challengers ...... 153 Republicans and Democrats...... 154 Summary ...... 155
Chapter 6 Partisanship, Opposition, and Accessibility on Congressional Sites ...... 157 Partisanship in America and on the Web ...... 159 Partisan Content on Campaign and Legislative Web Sites ...... 160 Partisan Content by Incumbency...... 162 Partisan Content by Party ...... 163 Partisan Content on the Sites of Charles Sanders and Mike Rogers .165 Political Opposition in America and on the Web ...... 169 Political Opposition on Campaign and Legislative Web Sites ...... 171
xi Political Opposition by Incumbency ...... 172 Political Opposition by Party ...... 173 Political Opposition on the Sites of Raymond Wardingley and George Miller...... 175 Accessibility on the Web ...... 181 Accessibility on Campaign and Legislative Web Sites...... 182 Accessibility by Incumbency and Party ...... 183 Accessibility of Candidates George Radanovich and Don Smart ...... 184 Accessibility Through the "Write Your Representative" Service ...... 187 Discussion ...... 190 Reasons for Differences in Partisan Content and Political Opposition ...... 191 Reasons for Differences in Accessibility...... 193
Chapter 7 Summary and Discussion ...... 195 Findings ...... 198 Reasons that Candidates May be Hesitant to Use the Web ...... 199 The Columbus Campaign Site: A Template for Learning ...... 201 Summary...... 208 Future Research ...... 214 Limitations ...... 216 Conclusion...... 218
Appendix ...... 224
References ...... 277
Vita...... 302
xii List of Tables
Table 3.1: Indicators for Information Content...... 56 Table 3.2: Indicators for Creative Content ...... 58 Table 3.3: Indicators for Technological Content ...... 59 Table 3.4: Indicators for Partisan Content and Political Opposition ...... 63 Table 3.5: Web Design Interviewees, Firms, and Locations...... 67 Table 3.6: Interview Guide...... 70 Table 5.1: Percentages for Information Content...... 130 Table 5.2: Percentages for Creative Content ...... 138 Table 5.3: Percentages for Technological Content ...... 144 Table 6.1: Percentages for Partisan Content...... 164 Table 6.2: Percentages for Political Opposition ...... 174 Table 6.3: Percentages for Accessibility ...... 184
xiii List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Internet Adoption Rates Versus Other Mediums ...... 13 Figure 2.2: Cultural Values, Attitudes, and Consumer Behavior ...... 25 Figure 4.1: Model of Cultural Meaning Transfer...... 85
xiv List of Illustrations
Illustration 1.1: Former President Bill Clinton participates in a 1999 online town hall meeting at George Washington University...... 1 Illustration 2.1: Former Senate Majority Leader and 1996 presidential candidate Robert Dole...... 11 Illustration 2.2: Rep. Van Hilleary (R-TN) as featured on http://www.house.gov\hilleary ...... 34 Illustration 2.3: Incumbent candidate Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) as featured on http://www.earlblumenauer.com ...... 39 Illustration 5.1: Biography from the site of Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA)...... 119
Illustration 5.2: District map from the site of incumbent candidate Darrell Issa (R-CA)...... 125 Illustration 5.3: Welcome letter from the site of Rep. John Sununu (R-NH) ....133 Illustration 5.4: Pop-up ads from the site of incumbent candidate Mike Rogers (R-MI) ...... 135 Illustration 5.5: Contribution and Volunteer sections from the site of challenging candidate Don Smart (D-GA)...... 140
Illustration 5.6: Homepage of incumbent candidate Richard Burr (R-NC)...... 146 Illustration 5.7: Homepage of incumbent candidate Ander Crenshaw (R-FL)..148 Illustration 5.8: Homepage of challenging candidate Stephanie Sanchez (D-CT)...... 150 Illustration 6.1: Homepage of challenging candidate Charles Sanders (D-OH) 166
xv Illustration 6.2: Homepage of challenging candidate Mike Rogers (R-AL) .....168 Illustration 6.3: Homepage of challenging candidate Raymond Wardingley (R-IL) ...... 177 Illustration 6.4: Homepage of incumbent candidate George Miller (D-CA).....179 Illustration 6.5: Link on homepage of incumbent candidate George Miller (D-CA) ...... 180 Illustration 6.6: Homepage of incumbent candidate George Radanovich (R-CA) ...... 185 Illustration 6.7: Homepage of challenging candidate Don Smart (D-GA)...... 186 Illustration 6.8: The Write Your Representative Service as featured on the U.S. House of Representatives Web site...... 188 Illustration 7.1: Homepage of challenging candidate Craig Columbus (D-AZ) 206 Illustration 7.2: Photographs from the homepage of Christine Ferguson (R-RI)...... 211 Illustration 7.3: Photograph from the homepage of Mike Gallagher (D-FL) ....211 Illustration 7.4: Homepage of Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL)...... 212
xvi Chapter 1: Introduction
Illustration 1.1: Former President Bill Clinton participates in a 1999 online town hall meeting at George Washington University.
Over the course of the last two hundred-plus years, the United States
Congress has been through a number of social and technological changes, not the least of which concerns the introduction of the Internet. Today, congressional candidates and legislators alike are forced to grapple with online issues, and the arrival of the Internet and the World Wide Web has encouraged politicians to
1 reveal themselves in a way that other media have not -- a fact that has not gone unnoticed by those in politics, academics, the press, and the public.
According to King (2002, ¶ 8), "While Congress as an institution is unlikely to change fundamentally because of the Internet, congressional campaigns will never be the same." Adds Bernick (2002, p. 6), "Just about everyone has a Web site now: the Utah Jazz, Eddie Bauer, the Deseret News. And they've become a must-do for congressional candidates." And an adviser to
Democratic congressional candidates warns, "My general advice is you have to have a Web site. You can't get away anymore with not having an Internet presence," (in Matthews, 2000, ¶ 9).
Whether or not the high expectations of King, Bernick, and others are met, while candidates of the past have relied on more traditional advertising to get their messages out to voters (Diamond and Bates 1988; Kaid 1981; Kaid and Davidson
1986), and while previous electoral successes have been largely dependent upon candidates' use of television (Paletz 1999), many believe that having a viable campaign Web site is a must-do for future political hopefuls.
While the success of John McCain's campaign site in raising money and recruiting volunteers during the 2000 presidential primary attracted a great deal of attention, observations as to whether candidates are currently using the Web to their political advantage are mixed. Some, like Jalonick (2000) and Mark (2002) find House candidates to be creative and technologically innovative on their sites;
2 others, such as Cornfield et al. (1998) and Tankersley (2002), claim that congressional candidates still have a long way to go in terms of using the
Internet and the Web effectively.
Opinions as to how congressional candidates handle the Web once they take office are also wide-ranging. Some less positive observers side with Johnson
(in Johnson et al. 2002, Conclusion section, ¶ 1), who notes, "Constituents are the most important stakeholders served by Congressional offices. This fact should be reflected on Congressional Web sites. To date, most congressional offices have applied the same principles to their Web sites as they have to more traditional forms of congressional communication, such as newsletters and mass mailings.
But the traditional communications principles do not translate effectively to Web sites." Others, like King (2002, ¶ 16), are more optimistic. He states, "Some of the
Web sites proliferating on Capitol Hill are surprisingly engaging. For example,
Ohio Representative Dennis J. Kucinich's official site boasts audio clips of polka music...[And] Alabama Republican Representative Bob Riley e-mailed constituents a video greeting, inviting them to visit his site and to respond to an on-line survey." Differences in opinion aside, political Web sites are undoubtedly a growing area of research interest for both scholars and members of the media.
3 Current Research on Web Campaigning
Researchers in advertising, communication studies, and political science have long studied political messages disseminated through the mass media, and a significant amount of attention has focused on political advertising. While the bulk of the campaign advertising literature concerns televised political spots (see
Benoit 1999; Joslyn 1980; Levine 1995), campaign Web sites are becoming a popular area of study as well (see Bimber 1998; Cornfield 2000; Foot and
Schneider 2002). A review of the relevant literature, which is further discussed in
Chapter Two, indicates that to date, academics, journalists, and others have primarily concentrated on six areas pertaining to politics and the Internet: campaigns, democracy, information seeking processes, technological innovation, communication, and content/design.
Study Purpose
This dissertation uses a cultural approach to examine the ways in which political candidates are being packaged and presented on the World Wide Web at the beginning of the 21st century, focusing on several important questions. Who exactly is the online congressional candidate? In what sort of culture is he or she
4 created? Do candidates give high priority to campaign Web sites? Will campaign sites be a priority in the future?
U.S. House elections were chosen because they are visible enough that most major party candidates post official campaign Web sites. It was also believed that upper-ballot political sites serve as a model for candidates running for office in lower levels of government. Moreover, unlike in U.S. Senate and presidential campaigns (though those will be mentioned as well), the U.S. House offers hundreds of Web sites from which to choose.
Based upon the theory that campaign advertising, more than any other form of political communication, encourages important dialogue and interaction between candidates and their audiences (see Hart 2000), this study predicted that the campaign sites of U.S. House candidates would be superior to the official government sites of sitting Representatives in three major areas: information, creativity, and technology. Due to the competitive nature of campaigns, it was also expected that the sites of candidates would feature more partisan content and more references to political opposition than those of legislators.
Data and Methods
Working under the assumption that Web sites function as part of an overall campaign strategy, this dissertation uses two distinct sources of data: a
5 series of thirteen in-depth interviews with political Web design elites, and a content analysis of 145 campaign sites (as well as a comparison of those sites to
118 legislative sites). The objectives of this approach are threefold: (1) to understand the culture in which campaign sites are created, (2) to determine how political candidates present themselves online; and (3) to discern the similarities and differences between the sites of congressional candidates and sitting House legislators.
Interviews
The interviews, discussed in greater detail in Chapters Three and Four, were conducted with experienced advertising creatives in major political Web design firms in the summer of 2002. The interviewees were selected using a three- stage process. First, consultants from a roster of established political Web design firms listed in a recent Campaigns & Elections (2001) article were contacted. To qualify, the consultants had to have several years' experience in the field, and had to have worked on one or more presidential or congressional campaigns during the past several election cycles. The Campaigns & Elections list yielded a total of four interviews. Next, six consultants whose company name had appeared on the homepages of some of the better-developed sites coded for the study were contacted, resulting in two additional interviews. The remaining designers were located through a Yahoo search primarily using the terms "political Web design,"
6 and "campaign Web site design." Through this process, interviews were secured with an additional seven designers. Though the interviews were not rigidly constructed, the author did use an interview guide designed to address the study's five hypotheses. Sample questions included: What, in your opinion, is the most important function of a campaign site? Who does the day-to-day maintenance on the sites that you design? What would you say are the most common feature(s) requested by candidates?
Content Analysis
As is explained further in the Methodology, a total of 263 congressional
Web sites were selected for the content analysis. The units of analyses were the official campaign homepage and the official U.S. House homepage. Each homepage was analyzed in full, regardless of length. Coding categories were based upon a prior congressional Web site coding scheme designed by Jarvis
(1996). However, since Jarvis' research focused only on the sites of sitting legislators, the coding scheme was modified by the author to include variables specifically related to campaign sites.
In an attempt to increase reliability in the content analyses, three students from the University of Texas at Austin were selected as independent coders. The coders, trained extensively by the author, worked independently of one another,
7 each on different sections of the project. The issue of intercoder-reliability and further details about the duties of each coder are discussed in Chapter Three.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation includes a total of seven chapters. Immediately following the Introduction, Chapter Two offers a brief history of the Internet as it relates to both politics and society. Next, a review of the germane literature on campaign Web sites is provided, along with an explanation of the cultural theory that grounds this research. A discussion of the relationship between congressional candidates, legislators, and the Web is subsequently offered, and the chapter concludes with the study's five hypotheses. Chapter Three outlines the dissertation's methodology. The sample and procedure for both the interviews and the content analysis are explained in detail, and conceptual and operational definitions for the key terms measured in the study (i.e. information content, creative content, technological content, partisan content, and political opposition) are provided. The fourth chapter focuses on the qualitative section of the project: the political Web designer interviews. In this chapter, numerous comments from the interviewees are provided, along with a discussion of the four primary findings that emerged from the interview notes and three additional areas of interest to the author.
8 The next two chapters concern the quantitative portion of the study: the content analysis. Chapter Five examines the discrepancies in the Web sites of candidates and legislators, while Chapter Six details the more notable differences between the two groups. Periodically, data from the two chapters is compared and contrasted with observations from the Web designers interviewed in Chapter Four. Chapter Seven provides a summary, discussion, and analysis of the major findings from the study. Additionally, one of the most informative (both politically and non-politically), creative, and technologically innovative sites in the content analysis is described in detail and offered as a template for future candidates. Finally, the study's limitations, as well as several directions for future research on the topic of campaign Web sites, are offered.
9 Chapter 2: The World of Politics Meets the World Wide Web
Until recently, the media mix available for political campaigning included five components: television, radio, newspaper, telephones, and direct mail. Now, there is a sixth: the Internet. -- Faucheux, F. (1998). Campaigns & Elections, 7.
Congress has to decide whether to embrace the openness of the Internet. I think they have no choice — the American people are going to expect it. -- Caldwell, F.
(in Matthews 2001, ¶ 47). Federal Computer Week Web site.
Any candidate worth his salt now adds an online component to his political holster of bumper stickers, yard signs, direct mail, advertising, grass-roots organizing, phone banks, fund-raisers and more. -- Brack, A. (2001, ¶ 1).
Campaigns & Elections, 17.
10 POLITICS ON THE WEB
Illustration 2.1: Former Senate Majority Leader and 1996 presidential candidate Robert Dole.
In April of 1995, longtime Senator and former Senate Majority Leader
Robert Dole officially announced his intent to run for President of the United
States. Shortly thereafter, in the midst of the first presidential race to take place since the Web had gained widespread popularity, the Dole campaign posted a
Web site. To promote the site, in what one journalist called "the biggest advertisement in the history of the World Wide Web," Dole invited viewers of an
October 1996 presidential debate to "...tap into my homepage:
11 www.dolekemp96org," (Moran 1996, p. A10). Though Dole, who once referred to his site "my whatchamacallit," fumbled the address by misplacing an all- important 'dot,' more than two million Web users accepted his invitation immediately following the debate. To many, this single act symbolizes the beginning of the Web's emerging role in American political campaigns (see Davis
1999).
The Internet is the fastest-growing electronic technology in world history; in a relatively short period of time, usage has reached record levels. For instance, while it took radio 38 years, television 13 years, and cable television 10 years, respectively, to reach 50 million U.S. households, the Internet reached the same amount of households in less than five years (Schroeder 2001; see Figure 2.1).
Currently, more than 174 million people, or 55 percent of homes in the U.S., have
Internet access; globally this figure tops 254 million. Additionally, over 55 million Americans are able to log onto the Internet from work (Pew Charitable
Trusts 2002). As Pew Internet & American Life Project Director Lee Rainie notes, “The Internet has gone from novelty to utility for many Americans. They are beginning to take it for granted, but they can’t imagine life without it,” (Pew
Charitable Trusts 2002, ¶ 3).
12 Internet as Mass Medium — North American Adoption Curves 120
100
80 TV
Radio
North American 60 50 Million Users / Cable Commercial Users / Households Internet Households (MM) 40
20
0 Years to Reach Radio: 38 years Commercial 50 MM Users TV: 13 years Cable*: 10 years Internet: 5 years -20 1922 1926 1930 1934 1938 1942 1946 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994
*Launch of HBO used to estimate the beginning of cable as an entertainment/advertising medium. Graph source: Towson University http://www.towson.edu
Figure 2.1: Internet Adoption Rates Versus Other Mediums (Schroeder 2001).
This is not to say that the digital divide, defined as "those who have access to information tools and the capability of using information and those who presumably do not," (Compaine 2001, p. 1) has closed. In fact, though the issue is widely debated, there is evidence to suggest that a high percentage of citizens
(particularly minorities and those with lower incomes and/or lower levels of education) are still cut off from the benefits of digital technology (see Cooper
13 2002). But the news is not all grim; according to Muske (2001, p. 2), "More people at every education level, for every race, among men and women, and for all ages are using the Internet." In fact, it appears that the traditional "have-nots" are making some of the most notable gains.
The quick evolution of any technology naturally raises questions about its potential advantages and disadvantages, and this is especially true of the Internet.
The growth of the Internet and the Web has inspired a national dialogue in the media, among academics, and in public circles about issues that reach far beyond the digital divide. As the Dole anecdote and the quotes at the beginning of the chapter indicate, one popular area of discussion concerns the Internet's role in -- and influence upon -- politics. Just as the emergence of television changed and enriched the political landscape in the 1960s, many believe the Internet and the
Web are "ushering in a new phase in political communication," (Gibson and Ward
2002, p. 99). Questions remain, however, regarding the significance of the medium as a political communication tool. What role will the Internet play in future political campaigns (Bimber 1997)? Will the Internet encourage democracy and participation (Norris 1999)? Is online voting a viable option (Browning 1996;
Meeks 1997; Motluck 1997; Schorow 2002)?
The rise in levels of Internet access in the last few years suggests there is a substantial audience for Web-based politics, and numerous studies confirm that a majority of Americans see the Internet as an important source of political
14 information. One recent study found that although television is still the primary source for election news and campaign advertising, more Internet users than ever
(22% in 2002 vs. 15% in 1998) are seeking online campaign information (Pew
Research Center 2003)1. Another study found that of those who go online for election news, 43 percent claimed that the information they obtained on the Web actually affected their voting choices (Szuhaj and Ledger 2001).
The 2000 presidential primaries provided further evidence that Web sites may become indispensable to future political candidates. Not surprisingly, John
McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign site, which brought in more than $2.2 million (average donation: $112) and helped McCain recruit roughly 26,000 volunteers, garnered much media and public attention (Mintz 2000). As
PoliticsOnline publisher Phil Noble stated in the early stages of the McCain race,
"We are seeing the beginning of a defining moment of the Internet and politics. In
48 hours, a campaign raised a million bucks and signed up 10,000 volunteers...Imagine what will happen when people really start to pay attention,"
(White 2000, A08).
This technology, however, isn't just for candidates; the Internet is also bridging the gap between citizens and elected officials. For instance, in 2001, the
U.S. Congress received more than 117 million e-mail messages, averaging almost
330,000 per day -- a 186 percent increase since 1999 (BBC 2002). Moreover,
1 The Internet was a less important political resource than in 2000 (33%), largely because midterm
15 according to Browning et al. (2001), U.S. House sites logged roughly 500 million hits in 2001, and the top House sites received almost 3,000 unique visitors each month.
The growing popularity of political Web sites, and the ways in which the
Internet and the Web can be used to enhance political communication, makes this topic a prime and pressing area for scholarly research. In fact, scholars from several disciplines, most notably advertising (see Kaid 2002), communication studies (see Hacker 2002), and political science (see Davis 1999) insist that the
Internet must be studied as a political communication tool due to its increasing influence on democracy. As such, this seems the ideal time to examine how candidates and elected officials are being sold to citizens and the media via campaign and legislative Web sites.
At the outset, it is important to make a distinction between the Internet and the World Wide Web. Since these two terms have been used in different ways over the last several years and, in fact, are often used interchangeably, the author defers to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) (1933; [1989]). The OED, designated "the dictionary of choice for etymological and historical information," by advertising researchers Stern, Zinkham, and Holbrook (2002), classifies the
Internet as "a computer network consisting of or connecting a number of smaller networks, such as two or more local area networks connected by a shared
elections draw less attention than presidential races. 16 communications protocol." Likewise, the World Wide Web is defined as "a system for accessing and retrieving multimedia information over the Internet, whereby documents stored at numerous locations worldwide are cross-referenced using hypertext links, which allow the user to move from one document to another." Put simply, the Web is the graphical portion of the Internet. While the mainstay of this dissertation focuses on the Web, other important aspects of the
Internet are also taken into consideration.
Much discussion in recent years has centered on the relationship between politics and the Internet. While these studies have certainly proven valuable, most have been casual and subjective. A thorough review of the literature indicates that academic and popular attention has been largely devoted to six themes: campaigns, democracy, information-seeking, technological innovation, communication, and content/design.
Campaigns
While past U.S. political elections have neither been won nor lost because of a candidate's presence -- or lack of presence -- on the Internet, the use of Web sites as a tool for delivering political information continues to grow, and many observers predict that we will soon have "real Internet campaigns and real Internet
17 candidates," (see Schneider 2000, ¶ 2). Moreover, a number of high-profile politicians like Sen. John McCain, former president Bill Clinton, and former
Vice-President Al Gore have already participated in "virtual" town hall meetings, question-and-answer sessions, and other innovative online campaign events.
Several researchers have examined the role of Web sites in political campaigns thus far. Some emphasize the process by which campaign sites bring together candidates and voters (Benson 1994; Davis 1999; Gibson and Ward
2002; Hacker, Howl and Steiner 1996; Jalonick 2002; Puopolo 2001; Selnow
1998; Weise 2000), while others focus on the future; that is, how the Internet might affect political campaigns, both positively and negatively, in the years to come (Hall 1999). The influence of the Internet on political candidates has also received attention (D'Alessio 2000; Fose 2002; Margolis et al. 1997; Stromer-
Galley 2000), as has the impact of online campaign fundraising (Ireland and Nash
2001; Varoga 1999; Willis 1999).
Democracy
Another group of scholars focuses on the Internet's potential as an instrument of democracy. Some hopefuls, like Harvard professor Elaine Kamrack
(as cited in Weise 2000, p. 38), see the ability for the immediate exchange of
18 political questions, answers, and ideas on the Internet as "real, meaningful democracy at work." Many praise the unmatched opportunities the Internet provides for citizens to engage in political actions such as attempting to influence votes and organizing interest groups (Bimber 1997; Bimber 1999; Budge 1996;
Swanson 2000), while others believe the Internet's strength lies in the fact that it may force a more issue-based look at candidates' views (Aikens and Koch 1996).
Still other cyber-optimists celebrate the medium's interactivity and twenty-four hour accessibility, the seemingly level playing field it creates among candidates, and its widespread appeal to younger voters (see DeLoach 1996). Conversely, some doubters are taking a "wait and see" approach, seeking evidence as to whether or not the Internet only serves to reinforce the already existing gap in political access and knowledge between the 'haves and have-nots' (Barber 1997;
Dahlgren 2000; Norris 2001).
Information-Seeking (Citizens and Journalists)
An increasing number of Web users are surfing the Internet to gather news about politicians and political issues; as such, a number of academics have turned their attention to this topic. Many scholars, for instance, are exploring the ways citizens seek political information online. Some focus on the Internet's ability to
19 reach voters (Connell 1997; McKeown and Plowman 1999) or the ways in which site visitors interpret online political information (Beato 2000; Kern 1997). Other researchers raise concerns about online source accountability (Jacques and Ratzan
1997), and about the effects of the enormous amount of information available on campaign sites (Benoit and Benoit 2000; Klotz 1998; Schneider 2000). Largely, however, research in this area centers on comparing the political information found on the Web with that acquired through more traditional media outlets
(Althaus and Tewksbury 2000; Eveland and Dunwoody 2001; Johnson et al.
1999; Kaid 2002; Leong et al. 1998; McKinney and Gaddie 2000; Novotny 2002).
Another group of academics focuses on how journalists regard online political sources. This is not surprising, since the press is a prime Web audience for politicians, and since journalists often use online information in their reporting. A number of observers study the issue of online journalistic source credibility (Austin and Dong 1994; Derbyshire 2002; Irvine 1997; Mauro 1995), while others explore how the Internet is changing the ways in which journalists gather facts for stories (Todorova 2002; Walker 2002) and how obtaining information from online sources affects their reporting (Koch 1998; Weise
2000). A large amount of research also focuses on the increasing frequency of
Internet usage among members of the media (Connell 1998; Cornfield 2002;
Szalavitz 1999) and reporters' growing reliance on Web sources (Hellinger
1998; Reider 1996).
20 Technological Innovation
A number of scholars are examining the numerous technological advancements associated with online politics. Some researchers examine the ways in which the Web is becoming increasingly information-rich and communication- intensive (Benson 1996; Bimber 2000), while others study issues related to the privacy of citizens on the Web (Borrus et al. 2001; Mehlman 2001; Wayne
2000). Online voting, an activity with an uncertain future at this point in time, is also a topic of notable concern, particularly among bureaucrats, academics, and advocacy groups (Gallop-Goodman 2001; Harrison 2000; Noble 1999;
Petersen 2000).
Communication
Online political communication between citizens and site sponsors has also been a prevalent area of research over the past several years. Much attention has been paid to the sprawling grassroots activist groups on the Internet (Dongen
1996; Foot and Schneider 2002; Hill and Hughes 1998; Jones 1996), and to the political debate and participation that takes place among citizens in venues such as online billboards and chat rooms (Benson 1996; Bimber 1997; Bucy et al.
1999; Davis 1999). Likewise, the ability of election-oriented Web sites to
21 mobilize citizens is a prominent topic in the field of communication (Bimber
1998; Foot and Schneider 2002), as is the role the Internet will (or will not) play in relation to other political media (Browning 1996; Dicken-Garcia 1998; Gordon
1995; Schneider 2000; Shapiro 1998).
Content/Design
Finally, considerable interest has centered on the quality of the content and design of political Web sites, and of campaign sites in particular. While most observers fit into one of three groups -- satisfied, dissatisfied, or neutral -- all seem focused on whether or not the needs of citizens are being met by online politicians.
The first group is of the opinion that political Web sites are currently lacking in the areas of information, creativity, and/or technology (Bentley College
2002; Cornfield et al. 1998; Tankersley 2002) The second group takes a more positive tack, praising the sites of politicians who understand the Web and use it to effectively communicate with visitors through informative, attractive and innovative sites (Jalonick 2000; Mark 2002; Weise 2000). Finally, a cluster of more neutral observers refrains from judgment altogether and instead offers simple tips for Web site improvement (Browning et al. 2001; Connell 1998;
Johnson et al. 2002; Schneider 2000; Yeatts 2000).
22 POLITICAL ADVERTISING ON THE WEB: A CULTURAL APPROACH
Cultural Theory
Most observers agree that the main purpose of advertising is to promote goods and services to consumers. However, ads not only sell products; they create a social world around these products and transmit messages through social connotations (Millum 1975). As Taylor, Hoy, and Haley (1996, p. 2) note,
"Advertising is clearly a cultural phenomenon, culturally inspired and created within the expectations of a culture."
In meeting consumers' expectations, advertising attempts to draw on familiar images, to speak with readily understood social messages, and to project the goals and values of society. For instance, the September 11 terrorist attacks -- arguably the most culturally significant event of our time -- were represented in a number of television ads during the 2002 Super Bowl. While Monster.com featured former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the Office of National Drug
Control Policy aired two ads suggesting a connection between buying drugs and helping terrorists (Parpis 2002). And Anheuser-Busch's "Respect" spot, regarded by many in advertising as the best in the Super Bowl, showed the trademark
Budweiser Clydesdales pulling a beer wagon into Manhattan where they appear to pause, bend a knee, and bow their heads near the area where the World Trade
Center once stood.
23 Advertising scholars O'Guinn, Allen, and Semenik (2000, p. 157) define culture as "the total life ways of a people, the social legacy the individual acquires from his/her group," (see Figure 2.2). Advertising and culture share a significant relationship because, as McCracken (1986, p. 74) observes, advertising functions as a "potential method of meaning transfer by bringing the consumer good and a representation of the culturally constituted world together within the frame of a particular advertisement." McCracken (1986, p. 75) adds that agency creative directors "must choose from among alternatives that have been created by the network of cultural categories and principles that constitute a culture's world."
Once an advertisement is presented, the viewer is left to determine whether or not it is culturally relevant and meaningful. More specifically, ads must be consistent with the values and beliefs of a people; if not, they, and the goods and services they represent, will likely be rejected. The framework from which this theory is drawn, McCracken's Model of Cultural Meaning Transfer, is discussed in more detail in Chapter Four.
24 Consumer Behavior
Attitudes Advertising
Cultural Values
Figure 2.2: Cultural Values, Attitudes, and Consumer Behavior (O'Guinn et al. 2000).
Advertising from Ancient Greece to Modern-day America
Advertising has been around since the beginning of civilization. For example, early Greek, Roman, and Egyptian merchants hung signs displaying images of their goods. In medieval England, cobblers used a golden boot, bakers a bundle of wheat, and opticians a pair of glasses to identify their trades. And by the year 1400, priests, teachers, and other professionals were promoting their services on handbills -- a precursor to today's classified ads (Sivulka 1998). With the invention of the printing press and movable type, however, the age of advertising as an instrument of culture truly began. Since then, the development of mediums such as radio, television, and now the Internet, has furthered advertising's evolution and integration into society.
25 Much like manufacturers of soap, cereal, and other commercial goods, political candidates over the past half-century have come to rely on campaign ads to sell themselves and, ultimately, to buy the votes of citizens. Since the publication of Joe McGinniss' classic The Selling of the President (1968), considerable attention has been given to the ways in which politicians are packaged and peddled, Madison Avenue-style. According to political media strategist Roger Ailes, the only difference between selling a candidate and selling cookies is that "cookies don't get off the shelf and hold news conferences, or make gaffes, or go on Meet the Press," (in Simon 1998, p. 199). It has been said that former President Ronald Reagan was a master of this concept; in 1984, shortly after walking into an introductory meeting with his campaign re-election team,
Reagan declared, "Hi guys! I'm a bar of soap," (Simon 1998, p. 199). And certainly, former president Bill Clinton was, and still is, an expert at selling his personae and policies to the public and the press.
Several academics have taken note of this phenomenon. Ehrenhalt (1992, p. 19) observes that congresspersons must convey a positive image in order to get elected, noting, "Even if it does not matter a great deal what a candidate says, it makes an enormous difference how he looks and sounds saying it." And
Ansolabehere and Iyengar (1995, p. 1) add, "[In the mid-1960s] there arose a new class of campaign manager -- the media consultant, who typically had worked on
Madison Avenue and viewed selling politics much like selling any other product."
26 However, while the strategies of candidates regarding more traditional forms of advertising (e.g. print, television, radio) have been adequately documented in the media and academics alike, we are only beginning to understand the ways in which they deal with the Internet and the Web.
Benefits of Using a Cultural Approach
With the work of Millum, McCracken, and other scholars in mind, this study uses a cultural approach in an effort to determine whether online political candidates, with the help of professional Web designers, are anticipating and meeting the needs of politically-interested citizens. This macro approach, which involves looking at campaign sites as instruments of cultural meaning, seems a good fit for political advertising for several reasons. First, it provides a rich, descriptive snapshot of how candidates are currently being sold to the American public. Second, it demonstrates how candidates are being presented on a young medium that is still in its infancy. Third, a cultural approach digs deeper than the largely casual analyses offered thus far, providing plentiful information about the past, present, and future of political advertising from which other researchers can build hypotheses. Finally, this method allows for external validity in that
27 observations gleaned from the study can be generalized beyond the data to other subjects or groups.
This topic at hand was chosen because it combines the author's interests in advertising and politics. As such, the study explores questions relevant to three fields: advertising, communication studies, and political science. The primary goal of this method is to bring together literatures guided by the earlier assumptions of cultural advertising scholars.
Several important studies have used a cultural approach in examining advertising in various mediums across time. The authors challenge us to look at what advertising has historically done to our culture, while at the same time asking us to place advertisements within the context of our larger human needs and social values. Much of this research is rooted in advertising theory, while the remainder is grounded in communication studies and political science.
Following, a summary of several prominent studies drawn from these three areas is presented.
Advertising and Culture
A notable amount of cultural research has been conducted with respect to advertising creativity. Kover (1995, p. 607), in an approach he calls "similar to
28 that of an anthropologist," studied the culture of advertising copywriters and discovered through in-depth interviews that copywriters actually use informal theories of communication when developing creative strategies. Fox (1984), Jones
(1992), and Weilbacher (1993) examined advertising creativity from a historical perspective, concluding that ads developed in the 1960s by industry giants such as
Leo Burnett, David Ogilvy, and William Bernbach fostered a creative revolution that had all but vanished a decade later. Reid, King, and DeLorme (1998) surveyed top agency creatives to see whether they agreed that today's advertising is inferior, and found that the professionals, in fact, did not view modern ads as less creative than those from decades past.
Additionally, a number of cultural advertising studies have focused on gender portrayals in ads over time. For instance, Soley and Kurzbard (1986) performed a content analysis of males and females in general interest magazine ads from 1964 and 1984, discovering that female models were much more likely to be portrayed as suggestively clad, partially clad or nude than male models in both years. Soley and Reid (1988), who repeated the study to evaluate nudity content, found that magazine ads from 1984 included more nudity than those from
1964. Klassen, Jasper and Schwartz (1993) and Earnhart (1998) used content analysis to determine how men and women were depicted in magazine ads from the 1970s to the 1990s, finding that although equality portrayals increased, a
29 disproportionately high number of ads illustrated women in submissive or suggestive poses.
In two cultural advertising studies of a broader scope, Sivulka (1998) demonstrated how the newspaper ads of colonial times to the Web sites of today have matured in America, noting that ads and advertising agencies both mirror and create cultural trends and issues. On the other hand, Schudson (1984), who used this approach in his examination of the role that cigarette ads played in U.S. culture as smoking rose in popularity beginning in the 1920s, concluded that advertising generally serves as a reinforcement of cultural values rather than as a catalyst.
Communication Studies, Political Science and Culture As was previously mentioned, researchers from the fields of communication studies and political science have also approached campaign advertising from a cultural perspective. For instance, in her acclaimed book
Packaging the Presidency, Jamieson (1984) explored how presidential candidates in eleven campaigns from Eisenhower to Clinton were sold through a variety of media, and how these different types of media impacted the campaigns, the candidates, and the voting public.
30 Jamieson (1984, p. 519) concluded:
In many ways televised political advertising is the direct descendant of the advertised messages carried in song and on banners, torches, bandanas, and broadsides. Ads continue to ally the candidate with the people, only now that takes the form of showing the candidate pressing the flesh or answering questions from groups of citizens.
Using a similar approach, Ballotti and Kaid (2000), Benoit (1999), Diamond and
Bates (1992), and Levine (1995) also chronicled the history of presidential television advertisements.
There have been several cultural studies in the field of political communication that focus on lower-ballot races as well. Joslyn (1980) analyzed gubernatorial, senatorial, and presidential ads from 1960 to 1976, finding that issue-related content was more common than personal information about the candidate. Humke, Schmitt, and Grupp (1975) examined political ads from 1932 to 1960, discovering that the main theme in almost two-thirds of the ads was candidate or party, while issues were the central focus of only one-third.
Similarly, Latimer (1985) found that image was more popular than policy in campaign newspaper ads from 1978 to 1984. Finally, Sherr (1999, p. 55) examined the portrayal of children in political television spots produced from
1950 to 1996, concluding that "certain thematic patterns" associating children with issues such as poverty, war, and crime emerged.
31 Ultimately, taking a cultural approach will offer as many questions as it answers. In doing so, it follows in the footsteps of other scholars (e.g. Jamieson
1984) who have used this method in examining different types of advertising media as they have come of age. Despite the study's limitations, which are discussed in Chapter 7, examining campaign Web sites from a cultural perspective should advance our knowledge of both politicians and, more importantly, of modern-day political campaigns.
32 POLITICIANS ON THE WEB
While tens of millions of Americans happily digest a daily diet of "you've
got mail," a small group of citizens remains wary of e-mail, unsure how to
fit it into their daily routine -- and often downright resentful of it. No, they
aren't your great-grandparents. They're your Congress. -- Ault, A. and
Jones, K. (1999, ¶ 1-2). Vote.com Web site.
33 Legislator Web Sites
Illustration 2.2: Rep. Van Hilleary (R-TN) as featured on http://www.house.gov\hilleary.
The 436 men and women who serve in the U.S. House represent countless constituents across the country, and communicating with these citizens is a task to which they devote a great deal of time, energy, and money. In fact, on average,
House offices use an estimated 30 to 60 percent of their staff resources answering citizens' correspondence and providing various services (Browning et al. 2001).
Additionally, Representatives spend a great many weekends in their home districts shaking hands, making speeches, and breaking bread with residents.
In short, House members make an enormous effort to keep in touch with citizens, and several have publicly praised the potential of the Internet in helping them accomplish that task. Speaking at a press conference in 1995, former
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA) jubilantly predicted, "Part of what
34 [the Internet] is going to do is to get legislation and legislative materials beyond the cynicism of the elite, and you are going to see a dramatic expansion of an intellectual populism that Jefferson would have dreamed of," (Ubois 1995, p. 45).
In 1996, Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) exclaimed, "[The Internet] is going to be a positive development in our democracy," (DeLoach 1996). And even further up the ballot, in November 1999, then-President Bill Clinton urged the public to
"Keep those e-mails coming into the White House," (Hall 1999, p. 6A).
Nonetheless, the enthusiastic words of these and other prominent politicians have not necessarily reflected their actions. Though the Internet and the Web have the potential to become an important means of informing constituents and winning votes, the literature indicates that politicians, steadfastly clinging to tried-and-true methods of conducting business, have been slow to embrace the medium. This observation seems particularly true of sitting legislators. For example, by 1999, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) had still not devised a way to reply to e-mail messages, even though his office received almost 1,000 e-mails daily (Ault and Jones 1999). In that same year, twenty-two House members had yet to provide e-mail addresses, and many who did so expressed reluctance to use them. For example, Rep. Barney Frank (D-
MA) voiced concern that answering citizens' e-mails “would place too great a strain on my resources and my staff's ability to keep up with their already heavy work load." And Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) worried publicly that responding to
35 every e-mail “might force me to hire additional staff to wade through non- constituent communications and ‘spam’ junk mail,” (Ault and Jones 1999, ¶ 13).
As Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) observed of her own colleagues, most of whom still use aides to do the majority of their computer work, “Their understanding is growing, but unless individual members actually use the Net themselves, they won’t be savvy in terms of the discussion and debate around proposed legislation,” (as cited in Lynch 2000, ¶ 15).
Journalists and academics have also taken note of legislators' practice of publicly praising the wonders of the Internet while privately keeping their distance; one need only glance at a sampling of article titles over the past few years to obtain an accurate picture of the situation. The headline from a 1999 story by Ault and Jones reads, "Three Words Congress Hates to Hear: You've Got
Mail," and the BBC (2002) recently informed Britains that the "U.S. Congress
Drowns in E-mail." Similarly, Lynch (2000) drew readers' attention to the slow pace at which Congress is adapting to the Internet in an article entitled,
"Democracy Goes Digital...Bit by Bit: Some Members of Congress are Still
Clueless When it Comes to the Internet." Scholars Musso, Weare, and Hale
(2000, p. 16) claim that most government sites focus on "superficial information and communication capabilities that merely mimic existing communication systems" while neglecting to provide "more detailed content that might enrich citizens' access to their governments." And finally, Stromer-Galley (2000, p.127)
36 asserts that most government sites consist merely of "controlled, highly crafted information, similar to a campaign brochure or a television advertisement."
The reasons that many legislators seem unable or unwilling to accept the
Web as a viable means of communicating with citizens are unclear. Perhaps congressional offices do not have the skills or resources to master the Web.
Information technology consultant Kathy Goldschmidt (as cited in Matthews
2001, ¶ 12) states, "Congress is still struggling to figure out what the technology means and how to use it effectively. So far, the technology is a little overwhelming." Likewise, since there is no real central authority for congressional Web sites, there may be confusion among legislators about how to handle the complex issues that can arise when dealing with the Web. Most significantly, speaking to a theme that arises throughout this dissertation, many observers sense a hesitancy on the part of House members to be too accessible to the public. As Goldschmidt (as cited in Matthews 2001, ¶ 12) observes, "They don’t want [to be connected to the public], they want to be independent."
Perhaps the observations of Browning et al. (2001, Introduction section, ¶
5) most accurately reflect the relationship between Congress and the Internet. In their extensive study of House Web sites, the researchers note:
The large majority of Congressional offices treat their Web sites as ancillary to their duties, rather than integral to them. They don't see them as deserving priority attention and they devote minimal office time to them. They update them haphazardly or when time permits. They post content that highlights the activities and achievements ...rather than
37 creating content specifically geared to meeting the needs of their audiences. They give inadequate attention to designing user-friendly sites. Finally, they use their Web sites to promote their off line services -- or to encourage people to contact their offices by phone or mail -- rather than recognizing that Web users want their needs met quickly online.
38 Candidate Web Sites
Illustration 2.3: Incumbent candidate Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) as featured on http://www.earlblumenauer.com.
At stop after stop, speech after speech, as the train pulls slowly out of town, the people stand in the weeds beside the railroad tracks and wave. For mile after mile they line the broken and gullied ground. They hold up their babies and dogs and shout their goodbyes to the president...Bill Clinton stands on an open-air platform on the back of the last train car. He speaks into a microphone that is connected to four loudspeakers on the roof. And he says, "Bye! Bye! Thank you! Thank you!" Though, because he is in full campaign mode now, and therefore lapsing back into his soft Arkansas drawl, it comes out, "Bah! Bah! Thang-kyew!" He waves and waves at the people until the light fades and the last person is a shadow in the twilight and the train picks up speed and his staff asks him to come inside and work on the speech he will deliver at the Democratic convention...He turns for the door, but before he opens it, he reaches above him and pulls a cord, and the long, mournful toot-toot of Bill Clinton's last campaign hurtles through the night. -- excerpt from R. Simon's Showtime: The American Political Circus and the Race for the White House (1998, p. 225-226).
39 While legislative jobs are known for their oft-cushy hours, long vacation periods, and relative isolation from the public, as the Clinton snippet illustrates, political campaigns are another animal altogether. Campaigns, in fact, are considered more than a full-time job by most who experience them. Ehrenhalt
(1992, p. 229) states that to win a congressional seat in the early 1990s required
"the raising of half a million dollars or more, the yearlong disruption of personal and professional time, and the indignities of hand-to-hand campaigning." Today, the stakes are even higher; the average competitive House race continues for more than a year and costs well over $1 million (Sweeney in Thurber and Nelson
1995). In short, successful congressional candidates and their staffs put an enormous amount of time and effort into their campaigns, and most of the available research to date suggests that the same amount of care is put into political advertising, including campaign Web sites.
Though it is widely agreed that there is still room for improvement, the current literature shows that upper-level campaign sites are generally informative, creative, and innovative (aspects that will be further examined in later chapters), perhaps indicating that candidates are thinking progressively about the types of content, design, and technologies that will enhance the experiences of online users and encourage repeat visits. Following, a brief summary of the available readings on these three areas is provided.
40 Information
One of the biggest mistakes a candidate can make is neglecting to let site visitors know who they are and why they're running for office. Arming potential voters with plenty of substantive information is, in the words of political Web design consultant Lynn Reed, "Web site 101," (as cited in Jalonick, 2000, ¶ 2).
While this sort of information is abundant in traditional campaign image and issue ads, some congressional candidates are apparently using the Web "like a toy -- a place to post unedited rantings, to use as a family album, to experiment with graphics," (Jalonick 2000, ¶ 1-2) rather than as a storehouse for important personal and political details.
Another group of candidates, however, is passing the information test with flying colors. These candidates understand the importance of loading their sites with the kinds of details their target audiences are looking for, such as substantive issue positions and press releases. For example, 2002 House incumbents Dennis
Moore (D-KS) and Chris Cannon (R-UT) supplied online visitors with ample information about their political beliefs while organizing their campaign sites in a way that allowed users to quickly and easily read summaries of where they stood on each issue. Additionally, candidates Joe Turnham (D-AL) and Chris Cooper
(D-TN) provided the public and the media with an abundance of detailed, up-to- date press releases; Turnham's site offered a total of 16 releases, while Cooper's included 15.
41 Candidates are also using the Web to post political information with a more partisan slant. For instance, Steve Biener (R-DE) and Bart Stupak (R-MI) echoed the platform of President Bush by stressing lower taxes on their Web sites, while Adam Cox (D-TN) and Sam Farr (D-CA) emphasized the environment.
Similarly, several candidates in highly competitive House races used their sites to either launch attacks or defend themselves against barbs from opponents. For instance, House challenger Joseph Henry Nixon (R-CA) posted a statement on his site accusing Democratic incumbent Anna Eshoo of being "quiet on [her] military voting record," and challenger Joe Marine (R-WA) called his opponent,
Democratic incumbent Rick Larsen, "out of touch with the views and values of his constituents."
In fact, the idea of using political opposition on the Web is even popular at the presidential level. The 2000 presidential campaign site of Al Gore displayed an online ticker that counted in minutes and seconds "how long George W. Bush has managed to bob and weave away from debating Al Gore," while the Bush campaign's debatefacts.com site reloaded every 80 seconds during the 2000 television debates, providing up to 35 instant rebuttals per debate.
42 Creativity
Besides being informative, many political observers have praised upper- level campaign sites for their eye-catching creativity. Mark (2002, ¶ 1) noted that several 2002 House candidates had "broken the mold" by using "original or interesting graphics, photographs or other features that have the potential to win the votes of those with only a casual interest in politics." Likewise, Jalonick
(2000, ¶ 1-2) observed that many 2002 campaign sites were "not only following standards but helping to create a new set of rules for this new way of advertising themselves." Sums Jalonick, "U.S. House candidate sites are suddenly interesting and innovative."
Some scholars have also hailed the creativity found in the biographical descriptions of House candidates (Jarvis and Wilkerson 2002; Klotz 1997; West
1999). For instance, Jalonick (2000, ¶ 2) claims that candidates "have found some inventive ways to inform interested surfers about their lives and career accomplishments." Rather than resembling the typical House member's laundry list of committee appointments and legislation, candidate biographies -- important for providing visitors with a personal connection -- are apt to read like this excerpt from candidate Dennis Engler's (R-CA) site:
...family has always been the cornerstone of strength in this country. When the opportunity presents itself, we like many of you, tend to treasure such memorable events as barbecues, pizza parties, baseball games and camping...we enjoy the beauty of the mountains as well as the ocean.
43 Technological Innovations
Finally, a number of studies have shown that campaign sites are effectively utilizing technological innovations. Spurred by John McCain's 2000 fundraising success, almost all upper-ballot campaign sites are able to accept online contributions, and most have the ability to sign up volunteers. Some tech- savvy candidates even incorporate audio files, video files, and campaign ads into their sites. For example, one section of congressional candidate Paul Williams'
(R-TX) site offered visitors eight symphonic selections of patriotic music, including "Hail to the Chief" and "Stars and Stripes Forever." The site of another
House candidate, incumbent Ron Paul (R-TX), featured multimedia clips from several of his campaign ads, and even allowed visitors to listen to the "Ron Paul
Ballad" as sung by the candidate's grandchildren.
POLITICAL ADVERTISING AND ADVANCEMENTS IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES
Many new channels of political communication emerged in the latter 20th century, exposing the public to a growing number of mass-mediated messages during election season. Just as political ads, currently the most popular form of campaign communication, have their roots in the campaign banners and buttons
44 of years past (see Jamieson 1984), many view Web sites as an extension of these advertising traditions.
Though history has shown that there is a natural hesitancy to embrace new mediums, cynics need only look back to the early days of radio and television, and the comparable criticisms being aimed at those new media. As Stephens
(1998, p. 9) observed when comparing the evolution of the Internet to that of writing and the letterpress, "It takes a long time to realize the potential of a new form of communications -- much longer than those who are living through these changes expect." Adds Schwoch (1990, p. 55-56), "Despite the seeming ease of the transformational shift from radio to television, the process of change was rife with questions, uncertainty, and contradictory decisions." In fact, the "digital divide" is actually a new label for a similar construct created in the early 1900s by
AT&T president Theodore Vail, who used the term "universal service" when referring to his wish to integrate the highly fragmented local telephone companies into a single nationally interconnected system (Compaine 2001). Similarly, the digital divide is predated by the issue of "information haves and have nots," a phrase many used to represent the need for access to personal computers almost as soon as the Apple II was installed in its first school in 1980 (Compaine 2001).
Politicians, along with the general public, have participated in voicing doubts about new communication mediums. For instance, when the radio was just coming to the forefront, New York Senator Elihu Root exclaimed when a
45 microphone was placed in front of him, "Take that away. I can talk to a Democrat, but I cannot speak into a dead thing," (Jamieson 1984, p. 19). Likewise, though
Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered an address to a television audience of around
100,000 viewers from the World's Fair in New York in 1939, it was not until 1948
-- almost a decade later -- that politicians began "factoring television coverage into their political equations," (Jamieson 1984, p. 34). To some observers, it appears that the relationship between politicians, the Internet, and the Web is traveling down the same wary path.
CURRENT STUDY
Background
Society's enthusiasm for, and growing reliance on, the Internet and the
Web has added a new dimension to the political communications environment.
The popularity of the Web as a means of gathering political information, and its ability to facilitate democratic participation, forces modern-day candidates and legislators to grapple with the issue of communicating through political Web sites.
What makes the situation even more interesting is this: the arrival of the
Internet and the World Wide Web has encouraged politicians (much like corporations and other non-government groups) to become transparent in a way
46 that other media have not. As was previously mentioned, while candidates are known for their tireless public campaigning, it has traditionally been the practice of sitting legislators to remain tucked safely away from the peering -- and often, interfering -- eyes of the public (see Turner 2001). With the advent of the Internet and the Web, however, both of these groups are expected not only to post sites, but to participate in the online political community.
We know that most candidates and legislators have Web sites; what we do not yet understand are the cultural and societal implications that take place when a traditionally private group like legislators is forced to take a seat at the online table with candidates -- a much more public entity. This situation brings about several intriguing questions. What online advertising strategies are candidates and legislators using? How are the sites of these two groups similar? How are they different?
Contribution
Over the years, traditional campaign ads have been analyzed in a number of ways. The impact of political advertising on voter behavior, candidate evaluations, information processing, and voter utility has dominated effects research for the last several decades (Atkin et al. 1973; Cundy 1986; Garramone
1983; Joslyn 1980; Kaid and Sanders 1978; Kaid, Leland and Whitney 1992;
47 Keating and LaTane 1976; Meadow and Sigelman 1982; Perloff and Kinsey
1992). Additionally, many experiments have focused on the effects of negative political ads (Ansolabehere and Iyengar 1995; Clinger 1987; Gans 1985; Kaid and
Boydston 1987; Kellerman 1989; Lau 1982, 1985; Martz 1988; Surlin and
Gordon 1977; Ward 1995) or positive image-based spots (Kaid, Leland and
Whitney 1992; Kaid 1997). Methodologically, content analysis of political advertising has been popular among academics (Joslyn 1980; Patterson and
McClure 1976), as has historical and interpretive analysis (Diamond and Bates
1984, 1988, 1992; Jamieson 1984).
While the above-mentioned studies have made valuable contributions to the fields of advertising, communication, and political science, they do not provide contemporary insight as to how candidates are selling themselves on the
Web. To improve upon this research, Bimber (2001) suggests that scholars focus on the content of the Web, particularly with regard to the contributions that content can make to the political communication environment. With Bimber's suggestion in mind, the primary purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of how candidates are packaged and presented online through a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods.
As was discussed in the Introduction, for the qualitative portion of the study, telephone interviews with political Web design professionals were conducted specifically to provide insight into the minds of the elites who are
48 actually involved in helping politicians establish and maintain an online presence.
This method was chosen because it was anticipated that the interview responses would display a richness and depth that would be lacking in a survey or another less personal method. The quantitative method selected for this project was a content analysis of a large sample of U.S. House campaign Web sites, which were subsequently compared to a similarly large sample of sites representing sitting congresspersons. It was believed that, in conjunction with the interviews, the content analysis would allow for a more thorough examination of the actual creative product, and would provide independent confirmation of whether the sites actually reflected the thoughts and ideas that surfaced during the Web designer interviews.
SUMMARY
Campaign Web sites are an important area of study for at least three reasons. First, the Web, like more traditional media outlets, is now regarded by many as a legitimate source of campaign information. Second, candidates are slowly dealing with the realization that the Web may become an important tool for communicating with citizens. Finally, some observers predict that the Web will greatly serve democracy by increasing interactivity between politicians and
49 voters. In fact, Matthews (2000, ¶ 47) claims that, "...with billions of dollars spent each year on local, state, and national elections, the Web is sure to become a bigger political player in the future."
The relationship between the Internet, the Web, and political communication is only beginning to be understood. Because earlier studies have been built upon assumptions and variables that may or may not be valid, and since those studies have generally provided descriptive (Adler, Gent and Overmeyer
1997; Bimber 1997; Corman 1994; Jarvis 1996; Klotz 1997) or speculative
(Birdsall et al. 1996; Fisher, Margolis and Resnick 1996; Ornstein and
Schenkenberg 1996) analyses, it seems a prime opportunity to think progressively about the Web and its role as a political advertising medium.
Given the observations of past researchers, it was expected that legislators would hold less favorable attitudes toward their Web sites than would political candidates. As King (2002, ¶ 7) states, "One should not expect Congress to become an Internet well of public dialogue anytime soon. To the extent that lawmakers continue to feel that 'too much' information and 'too many' opinions are already available to them, Congress will continue using the Internet as a fancy all-hours viewing gallery in which citizens constitute the audience and little else."
While this study did not attempt to directly measure politicians' attitudes toward the Internet and the Web, it was believed that their feelings could be discerned through conversations with political Web designers (see Chapter Four), and
50 through a systematic examination of Web site content (see Chapters Five and Six).
As has already been stated, with the exception of a handful of studies
(see Jarvis and Wilkerson 2002; Klotz 1997), most observations of political Web sites have been purely anecdotal. Additionally, no known studies to date have compared the online strategies of political candidates with those of elected officials. Based upon the available research, it was assumed that political candidates would embrace the Web in much the same way that they have embraced traditional campaign advertising. Conversely, it was believed that sitting politicians would be more ambivalent about selling themselves online. In an effort to address these issues, and to learn more about the online strategies of candidates and legislators, the author proposed the following five hypotheses:
H1: Political candidates will include more information content on their campaign
Web sites than will legislators on their official House sites.
H2: Political candidates will include more creative content on their campaign
Web sites than will legislators on their official House sites.
51 H3: Political candidates will include more technological content on their
campaign Web sites than will legislators on their official House sites.
H4: Political candidates will include more partisan content on their campaign
Web sites than will legislators on their official House sites.
H5: Political candidates will include more political opposition on their campaign
Web sites than will legislators on their official House sites.
52 Chapter 3: Methodology
To address the study's hypotheses, the author relied on two data collection methods which were briefly mentioned in the preceding chapter: in-depth interviews with political Web design professionals, and a content analysis of 145 campaign sites (see Appendix). Data from the campaign sites was also compared with a sample of 118 official House sites to determine the similarities and differences with which candidates and legislators are presenting themselves online (see Appendix). Again, distinctions are made between the Internet (a large network that links smaller computer networks around the world) and the Web (the multimedia segment of the Internet) in this chapter and throughout the course of the dissertation.
It should also be noted that in studying these sites, it was discovered that there is a bias in the research that all political candidates are well-funded and well-advised. This bias led the author to believe that candidates would have more resources with which to build Web sites that were more informative (in both political and non-political ways), more creative, and more technologically innovative than those of legislators. In fact, it was discovered that this is generally not the case. As such, in many places throughout the remainder of this study, the distinction will be made between incumbents (who are typically wealthy) and challengers (who are sometimes wealthy and sometimes not).
53 MEASUREMENT CRITERIA
The interview questions and Web site coding scheme focused primarily on the strategies involved in selling candidates and elected officials on the Web.
More specifically, the analyses addressed the study's hypotheses by exploring five major aspects of political Web sites conceptualized by the author: information content, creative content, technological content, partisan content, and political opposition. Following, each variable is described in greater detail as it relates to the interviews and content analysis.
Information Content
The first variable examined on campaign and legislative sites was information content. For purposes of this study, information is characterized as the educational content and services provided on a site; it is also the "most extensive and most substantive factor of a congressional Web site," (Browning et al. 2001, Five Building Blocks section, ¶ 6). Many believe that politicians can connect more deeply with their target audiences by providing them with high quality information -- a job made easier than ever due to the Web's relatively low cost and high reach. For instance, information once difficult for the average citizen to obtain, such as campaign finance figures, lobbying data, and voting
54 information is now conveniently accessible through the Internet. Other types of political information, including issue positions, educational facts about Congress, press releases, and biographies can also be made available through the Web sites of politicians.
To address the topic of information content in the interviews, thirteen political Web design professionals were queried as to who, in their experience, made the majority of decisions regarding the content of the Web sites they created. The designers were also asked which types of information were most important to them, and to the candidates for whom they worked (see Table 3.6 for a complete interview guide). For the content analysis, the coding scheme associated with the variable of information featured eight values for legislators and fourteen for candidates. These values, listed in Table 3.1, emerged from a prior analysis of congressional homepages conducted by Jarvis and
Wilkerson (2002).
55 Table 3.1
Indicators for Information Content
Feature Measure
Biography yes (1), no (2) Contact information yes (1), no (2) District information/map yes (1), no (2) Issues (Basic) yes (1), no (2) Issue type (1) children/family, (2) crime, (3) defense/military, (4) drugs (illegal), (5) economy/jobs, (6) education, (7) energy/ environment, (8) health care/prescription drugs, (9) immigration, (10) internet/ technology, (11) social security/seniors, (12) taxes, (13) terrorism, (14) veterans, (15) welfare, (16) other Issues (Controversial) yes (1), no (2) Issue type (1) abortion, (2) capital punishment, (3) gay/lesbian, (4) racial issues/affirmative action, (5) religion, (6) other Press releases yes (1), no (2); number of press releases Privacy statement yes (1), no (2) Site last updated yes (1), no (2); date site was last updated Campaign staff information yes (1), no (2) Disclosure of site sponsorship yes (1), no (2) Endorsements yes (1), no (2) Events schedule yes (1), no (2) Voting information yes (1), no (2) Web designer name yes (1), no (2)
Notes: Italics indicate candidate-only measures. Numbers in parentheses correspond to the values in the codebook.
Creative Content
The second variable examined on the sites was creative content, and
Parnes (1975, p. 225) provides a fitting characterization for this project. Parnes defines creativity as "the fresh and relevant association of thoughts, facts, and ideas, into a new configuration which pleases, which has meaning beyond the sum of the parts, which provides a synergistic effect."
56 Online creativity is important because Web sites are primarily a visual medium, and the ways in which words and images work together can greatly affect the messages being presented, as well as the experience of the visitor.
Thorough attention to layout, graphics, color, and other creative aspects help to ensure that a site is user-friendly and inviting; conversely, too many links, photos, or graphics, may distract or even deter visitors.
For the interviews, issues such as creative freedom and design features were discussed at length in an effort to learn more about how creative content is developed for campaign sites. The designers were also invited to offer insight as to what features they believed made a site truly creative. For the content analysis, site creativity was measured through an examination of four values for legislators and seven for candidates. Again, the three additional values were specific to campaigns (see Table 3.2).
57 Table 3.2
Indicators for Creative Content
Feature Measure
Graphics total number and type of graphics Greeting message yes (1), no (2) Kid's activities yes (1), no (2) Photos yes (1), no (2) Photo type (1) candidate/legislator, (2) citizen, (3) D.C., (4) family Campaign advertisements yes (1), no (2) Downloadable campaign materials yes (1) no (2); total number and type of materials Pop-up advertisements yes (1), no (2) Pop-up advertisement type (1) fundraising solicitation, (2) welcome, (3) volunteer
Notes: Italics indicate candidate-only measures. Numbers in parentheses correspond to the values in the codebook.
Technological Content
Technological content was the third variable examined in the study; it is characterized as "the products of creative and strategic thinking about what features and devices will enhance a visitor's experience on a Web site,"
(Browning et al. 2001, Five Building Blocks section, ¶ 36). Technology is significant in that it helps politicians better communicate with audiences through multimedia; it also assists in keeping visitors engaged and interested. For politicians who choose to set up bulletin boards or chat rooms, technological innovations even allow online visitors to communicate with one another.
To discern which types of technology candidates are using on their sites,
58 and to what extent, the interview participants were asked several questions concerning such topics as the attitudes of candidates toward technology, the types of high-tech features available at this time, and the costs of using those features.
To assess technological innovation in the content analysis, nine Web site values were measured for legislators, while thirteen were measured for candidates (see
Table 3.3).
Table 3.3
Indicators for Technological Content
Feature Measure
Audio files yes (1), no (2); total number and type of audio files Bulletin board/chat room yes (1), no (2) Counter yes (1), no (2) E-mail friends/family yes (1), no (2) E-mail newsletter sign-up yes (1), no (2) Multimedia yes (1), no (2); total number and type of multimedia Polls and surveys yes (1), no (2) Search engine yes (1), no (2) Video files yes (1), no (2); total number and type of video files Campaign merchandise yes (1), no (2) Contribute yes (1), no (2) Feedback form yes (1), no (2) Volunteer information yes (1), no (2)
Notes: Italics indicate candidate-only measures. Numbers in parentheses correspond to the values in the codebook.
59 Partisan Content
Partisanship, the fourth variable assessed for this dissertation, has been described as the steady and continuing connection an individual feels toward a particular political party (Sanders et al. 2002). Partisanship is extremely important for both politicians and voters for at least two reasons. First, affiliation with a political party often works as a shortcut, influencing individuals to vote in ways that reflect their party's values and ideas. Second, partisanship frequently serves as a screen through which citizens interpret new political information. For purposes of this study, partisan content is characterized as an online reference to a candidate or legislator's own political party.
To determine how partisan content is used on campaign sites, the interview participants were asked how candidates feel about revealing their political affiliations online, and about their own attitudes toward bringing partisan politics to the Web; the construct of partisan content was fully explained by the author before each interviewee was allowed to respond. For the content analysis, partisan content was measured by noting the number and type of photographs, words, or graphics on the sites that represented either the Republican or
Democratic party. Online partisan cues were sometimes obvious, such as the statement "Mark Sanford, Republican for Congress" or the use of the Democratic donkey. On the other hand, partisanship could be quite subtle or even difficult to discern. For instance, a politician might use the name of a well-known colleague
60 in a positive way e.g. "George W. Bush's tax cuts have greatly helped our country," or display a photograph of a prominent party member or personality like
Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh. It should be noted that uses of "republican" or
"democrat" in a lower-case sense e.g. "I am proud to live in a democratic society" were not counted as partisanship. A complete list of partisan cues as specified in the codebook can be found at the end of the subsequent section in Table 3.4.
Political Opposition
The fifth aspect of campaign and legislative Web sites examined by the author was political opposition. Hagan (1993) suggests that there are two significant sources of domestic political opposition. The first source includes political divisions within the organization itself, arising from a group's cohesiveness, leadership arrangement, or divergence over issues. The second source comes from outside the group, primarily from opposing political groups and parties. It is the latter of the two sources that this study is concerned with. In an earlier study of congressional Web sites, Jarvis and Wilkerson (2002, p. 21) defined political opposition as "fault-finding or antipathy for the institution."
Likewise, in this dissertation, political opposition is conceptualized as detected anger or resentment toward a rival political party or a specific political candidate.
61 To explore the topic of political opposition in the interviews, the Web designers were asked whether or not they and the candidates they represented were comfortable with displaying political opposition online, and why this was
(or was not) the case. To ensure that the participants understood what the author meant by political opposition, the conceptual definition of the term, along with several actual examples of political opposition, were offered. In the content analysis, political opposition was measured for candidates using four indicators:
(1) attack ads introducing opposition, (2) attack ads responding to opposition, (3) press releases introducing opposition; and (4) press releases responding to opposition. Since House members are forbidden by law (U.S. House of
Representatives 2002, p. 216) to include campaign ads or even references to campaigns on their official government sites, political opposition on legislative sites was measured using only two indicators: (1) press releases introducing opposition, and (2) press releases responding to opposition (see Table 3.4).
Examples might include an online ad entitled “Why Rep. Mike Rogers is soft on crime,” or a press release proclaiming “The sad state of Texas’ economy under
Rep. Tom DeLay.”
62
Table 3.4
Indicators for Partisan Content and Political Opposition
Feature Measure
Partisanship yes (1), no (2) Partisanship type (1) photo with prominent party member, (2) partisan graphic(s), (3) partisan text(s) Political opposition yes (1), no (2) Political opposition type (1) attack ads introducing opposition, (2) attack ads responding to opposition, (3) press releases/text introducing opposition, (4) press releases/text responding to opposition
INTERVIEWS
Kahn and Cannell (1957) describe the interview research method as “a conversation with a purpose." In-depth interviews, often referred to by scholars as elite interviews (Dexter 1970; Marshall and Rossman 1995), are generally regarded as a useful and effective technique for researching political topics. In the past, interviews have proven helpful in such tasks as: (1) collecting historical background, (2) assembling fundamental facts about a political problem, (3) evaluating political positions and assets, (4) gathering political sources and materials; and (5) developing ideas about the future of politics (Johnson, Joslyn and Reynolds 2001).
The elite interview method was selected because it was believed that the
63 qualitative data would add a unique descriptive dimension to the study that would not have been attained using quantitative data alone. Further, this type of analysis is significant in that no known studies published to date have examined the topic of campaign Web site design using the elite interview method; until now, research has been based largely on analyses of the end product (i.e. Web sites) rather than the process itself. Moreover, interviews are highly under-utilized in the field of advertising. While this technique has been used in a handful of studies -- for example, to probe copywriters about their creative processes (Kover 1995) and to determine how French creative directors develop advertising strategies (Taylor,
Hoy and Haley 1996) -- advertising academics have largely relied on quantitative methods and empirical effects research.
Sample and Procedure
To gather a pool of interview participants, forty-six individuals (or companies, if no specific contact name could be found) who designed campaign
Web sites as their main line of business were contacted by e-mail. As was mentioned in the Introduction, roughly one-third of the names were obtained from an article in the political trade publication Campaigns & Elections (2001), which provided a listing of reputable political design firms; the remaining designers were located either through a Yahoo search, or because their company's name 64 appeared on one of the congressional Web sites coded for this study. Of those contacted, thirteen individuals (19%) agreed to participate in a thirty to forty-five minute telephone interview2.
Of the thirteen individuals who participated in the interviews, twelve
(92%) were male. The respondents came from a variety of states including:
California, Kentucky, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. (see Table 3.5). All but one of the participants was an owner or co-owner of the company they represented, and each had extensive experience designing upper-level (e.g. presidential, gubernatorial, senatorial) campaign sites. For instance, the sample included a designer who helped create the 2000 George W. Bush for President site and is currently working on Bush's campaign site for 2004, and another who played a central role in the development of the 1996 Clinton/Gore campaign site as well as Bill
Bradley's 2000 presidential campaign site. Also included were a consultant who worked for over four years as a member of Yahoo's "Think Tank Swat Team," a past marketing and public affairs executive for C-SPAN, an ex-member of the
Minnesota State Legislature, and a former Internet consultant for CNN's
AllPolitics.com.
In addition to their technical expertise, most of the interviewees expressed
2 It should be noted that while a few of the interviewees actually developed and built political Web sites, the majority worked only as design consultants, leaving the actual site construction to others in their organizations. 65 a lifelong passion for politics. In fact, some could even point to certain life events that sparked their interest. For instance, one developed a love of politics after doing volunteer campaign work in grammar school, and another stated that he was "completely transformed" while watching Ronald Reagan accept the GOP nomination in 19803. Several participants had been involved with political campaigns in one form or another for many years. One designer acknowledged that he had been doing political work since volunteering for the Carter/Mondale campaign as a college student in the mid-1970s, while another worked as a legislative aide for Ohio Congressperson Deborah Pryce immediately upon graduation from college. Additionally, one of the designers, a Washington, D.C. native, stated that he had worked for the Republican National Committee, interned in Dan Quayle's office during his vice-presidency, and volunteered for the 2000 George W. Bush presidential campaign in Iowa.
3 I10. 66
Table 3.5
Web Design Interviewees, Firms, and Locations
Interviewee Design Firm Location
I1 Vote For Us Manhattan Beach, CA I2 CampaignOffice.com St. Paul, MN I3 NetPolitics Group Washington, D.C. I4 Internet Campaign Solutions Arlington, VA I5 Landslide Design Rockville, MD I6 WiredVoter Columbus, OH I7 Campaign HQ Middlesboro, KY I8 Anonymous Democratic firm Washington, D.C. I9 Liberty Concepts Philadelphia, PA I10 Patriot Campaign Consulting Towanda, IL I11 VoteNet Solutions Washington, D.C. I12 Phil Noble & Associates Charleston, SC I13 GovTech Solutions Washington, D.C.
According to McCracken (1988, p. 17), the primary goal of the qualitative interview "is not to discover how many, and what kinds of people share a certain characteristic. It is to gain access to the cultural categories and assumptions according to which one culture construes the world." Given this objective, a list of ten questions (see Table 3.6) served as an informal discussion guide for the interviews. The questions were carefully constructed by the author to ensure that each of the study's five hypotheses were addressed. Sample questions included:
What is the most important function of a campaign site? Do you think that candidates see Web sites as an integral part of their campaigns? What, is the role of the Web site in an integrated campaign strategy?
The interviews were conducted over a two-week period in July and
67 August of 2002. Questions were sent in advance to each consultant via e-mail so that they would prepared to speak to the topics at hand, and to ensure that they felt qualified to participate. The interviews ranged from 30 minutes to two hours in length, with the average session lasting 44 minutes.
The interviews were not tape-recorded for confidentiality reasons. Instead, the discussions were transcribed by hand, and typed out in full immediately following each conversation. Once all interviews were completed, the analytic induction method (Goetz and LeCompte 1981; Znaniecki 1934) was used to determine common themes in the responses. Analytic induction is a qualitative method described by Znaniecki (1934), who named the technique and systematized many of its related concepts. According to Ratliff (2002), the goal of this method is to construct general statements that can be revised at a later time if discrepancies are found, but will ideally accurately reflect the collective knowledge on a given topic. Using analytic induction, the author discerned four broad categories central to the designers' constructions of campaign Web site creation: development of site content, site maintenance, site features and functions, and site integration. These categories are further discussed in
Chapter Four.
As past scholars have noted, though every attempt was made to preserve the original content as described by each participant, no interpretation can completely reflect the phenomenon it was intended to represent (Geertz 1983;
68 Hirschman 1986; Hirschman 1989; Wolff 1975). However, to ensure that the analysis mirrored the interviewees' original thoughts and ideas as closely as possible, pertinent draft sections were sent to the designers for their comments, corrections, and approval. No misrepresentations were reported.
All but one participant granted the author permission to use his or her name and company name in the study though they are generally referred to by number. The designers were not provided monetary compensation for their time; instead, they were offered a summary of the study results or a copy of the entire dissertation in CD-Rom format. All of the subjects requested a copy of the dissertation.
The interviewees were encouraged to speak freely and to steer the direction of the conversation toward the topics they felt were most important concerning online campaign strategy. This principle, supported by Plato (see Katz
1954) as well as other more contemporary scholars (see Lazarsfeld 1986), was beneficial in that it allowed the author to draw more fruitful insights than would a more rigidly- constructed situation.
69
Table 3.6
Interview Guide
1. How long have you been designing campaign Web sites and how did you become interested in this type of work?
2. Who decides on the content of a political Web site -- you, the candidate, or both?
3. What, in your opinion, is the most important function of a campaign site?
4. Who does the day-to-day maintenance on the sites that you design?
5. Do you think that candidates see Web sites as an integral part of their campaigns?
6. What would you say are the most common feature(s) requested by candidates?
7. What, in your opinion, is the role of the Web site in an integrated campaign strategy? How important do you think candidate sites will be as a campaign tool in the future?
8. Is there a site you're most proud of? If so, what is it about that site that makes it stand out?
9. Is there anything that you definitely would not put on a campaign site?
10. Are there any parting thoughts that you would like to add?
While quantitative methods such as content analysis leave less room for speculation, issues of reliability have often been used as criticisms of qualitative research. For instance, it could be argued that interview participants are led to provide certain answers through leading questions, or that interviewee responses are subject to a variety of interpretations (Kvale 1994). As such, it is important for the author to address the issue of qualitative reliability as it pertains to this study.
The primary goal of the qualitative interview is to gather a person's knowledge and beliefs, to understand them, and then explain that experience to
70 others. With qualitative research, it is generally accepted that both sides of the process could be influenced. As was mentioned earlier in the chapter, each of the data sets (e.g. interviews and content analysis) used in this dissertation provide insight into the current state of political Web sites, and it is believed that the two methods sufficiently complement each other. Additional reliability is built into the study due to the fact that two units of analysis (i.e. campaign and legislative sites) are examined, and perhaps most importantly, because the author enlisted the help of the three independent coders, whose work will be described in more detail in the following section.
CONTENT ANALYSIS
Content analysis is the research method of choice for many studies in the fields of communication and political science, and it is a standard analytical tool in advertising research (Kolbe and Burnett 1991). In fact, Abernethy and Franke
(1996) found that as of 1996, this method had been used in almost 60 published advertising studies. Among them, content analysis has been implemented in comparing magazine ads in the U.S. and abroad (Al-Olayan and Karande 2000;
Resnik and Stern 1977), examining advertising images of women across cultures
(Maynard and Taylor 1999), evaluating the commercial content of messages targeted at children (Alexander et al. 1998), interpreting disclosures in prime-time
71 children's advertising (Muehling and Kolbe 1998), and measuring the creativity of messages in radio ads (Abernethy, Gray and Rotfeld 1993). Since content analysis has been a popular and effective method for analyzing television, radio, and print advertising, it was deemed suitable for evaluating campaign Web sites as well.
Sample and Procedure
In the 2002 mid-term election, there were an estimated 405 incumbents and 592 challengers vying for open seats in the U.S. House of Representatives
(Federal Election Commission 2002). The content analysis portion of this research examines the information posted on the 2002 campaign Web sites of 55 incumbents and 90 challengers (N=145) running for open House seats. It also compares data from the campaign sites to that from an additional sample of 118 official congressional (.gov) Web sites.
The units of analyses are the official campaign homepage and the official
House homepage. The entire homepage was included in the analysis regardless of length, as were other relevant sections including biographies and issue positions.
These sites were selected because they were the "official" campaign sites of the candidates and legislators. As such, they are relatively easy for visitors to find by typing simple cue words and phrases (e.g. "Barrett for Congress" for a campaign site, or "Representative Burr" for a government site) into search engines like
72 Yahoo or Google.
In selecting which legislative sites to analyze for this project, the author selected the sites of sitting House members who represented exactly the same states and districts as those analyzed in a separate content analysis conducted by
Jarvis in 1996. The campaign sample was also based on Jarvis' legislative analysis; specifically, all major party candidates from the districts represented in the legislative sample who had a campaign site at the time the sites were saved were included in the study. Ultimately, only 45 of the 118 original House members in the legislative sample also appeared in the campaign sample, while the remaining 100 were new to the study. This discrepancy occurred for one of the following reasons: (1) the Representative was retiring, (2) the Representative elected not to run for another term; or (3) the Representative did not have a campaign site at the time the data was collected. An additional group of twenty legislative sites, selected using a random numbers table, were also examined to ensure that the sample used in the study was representative of the entire population of House sites. Few differences were found between the original sample and the randomly-selected group, thus further increasing the study's reliability.
Once the legislative and campaign sites were selected, each was accessed using a computer running the Windows 98 operating system with a high-speed cable Internet connection. Internet Explorer was used as the browser, and the sites
73 were saved in full using HTTrack Web Site Copier software. For backup purposes, the author also made printouts of each homepage. All of the legislative and campaign sites were saved in June and July 2002, roughly four to five months before the general election on November 5.
The demographics of the legislative sample closely mirrored those of the
One Hundred Seventh Congress, which was in session at the time this study was conducted. Just as the House was comprised of eighty-six percent men, a majority of the official House sites (88%) represented male legislators. Similarly, while the
House was made up of fifty-one percent Republicans, forty-eight percent
Democrats, and one percent Independents, fifty-three percent of the legislators in the sample were Republicans, forty-six percent were Democrats, and one was an
Independent4. The regions from which the legislators hailed were as follows:
Midwest (31%), Northeast (17%), South (32%), and West (21%).
Demographics for the campaign sites followed a similar pattern. A majority of the candidates were male (86%), and fifty-seven percent belonged to the GOP, while forty-three percent represented the Democratic party.
Additionally, there were almost twice as many challengers (62%) for each seat as incumbents (38%). The candidates represented the following geographic regions:
Midwest (23%), Northeast (18%), South (39%), and West (20%).
Content analysis is defined by Krippendorf (1980, p. 21) as "a research
74 technique for making replicable and valid inferences from data to their context."
This method was selected because it allows for the classification of items objectively and systematically, according to unambiguous rules and criteria.
Content analysis also ranks high on external validity, as the findings are generalizable to other populations and/or social settings. Moreover, this technique is known as an effective tool for establishing correlation (see Riffe et al. 1998).
Several steps were involved in the content analytic process. First, simple characteristics of each politician were recorded to assess basic personal and political information. These demographic traits consisted of: name, gender, state/district number, party affiliation, incumbency, age, race, and region (the complete codebook and coding sheets can be found in the Appendix). Second, characteristics specific to the Web were noted. These features included total number of links on the homepage, as well as the presence (or non-presence) of text, graphics, color, and photos. Finally, measures for each of the dependent variables were coded. Frequencies were run on all values to determine the overall profile of the sites, while percentages and chi-square tests for significance were employed to illustrate their similarities and differences as discussed in Chapters
Five and Six.
Coding categories for the sites were based upon a prior coding scheme
4 Results for the Independent legislator are not reported in this study due to the fact that only
75 developed by Jarvis (1996), whose comparison of 1995-96 congressional Web sites served as a starting point for this study. As was previously stated, since
Jarvis' work concerned only the sites of elected officials, the coding scheme was modified by the author to include variables related specifically to campaign sites, and to the dissertation's five hypotheses.
A key methodological issue in content analysis is the uniformity of the interpretation and categorization of the items of interest (e.g. Web sites). The main concern is that the categorization is reliable, allowing coders to classify each item consistently. To address this issue, different methods of intercoder agreement have been developed and implemented over the years. Yet, as Lombard et al.
(2002, p. 587) point out, "There are few standard and accessible guidelines available regarding the appropriate procedures to use to assess and report intercoder reliability, or software tools to calculate it." To determine the most appropriate method for this study, the author chose to conduct an informal survey of research published in the primary academic journal in the field of advertising, the Journal of Advertising (JOA).
Hughes and Garrett (1990) and Namjung et al. (1993) found that thirteen
(60%) of the twenty-two content analyses published in the JOA from 1981 to
1990 used percentage agreement -- a method in which the ratio of coding agreements is divided by the total number of coding decisions. Likewise, in an
Republicans and Democrats were included in the campaign sample. 76 independent assessment, the author found that thirteen (50%) of the twenty-six content analyses published in the JOA from 1991 to 2002 also used percentage agreement (a summary of these articles can be found in the Appendix). Though this method has been deemed inappropriate by some because it does not correct for chance (see Lombard et al. 2002), percentage agreement has been used in over half of the content analyses found in the JOA since 1981 and, as such, was deemed a safe and reliable measure for calculating intercoder agreement in this dissertation.
As was previously mentioned, though all sites in the study were first coded by the author, in an effort to increase reliability in the content analyses, two undergraduate students and one graduate student were trained as independent coders. The coders worked independently of one another, each on different sections of the project. All three coders followed the stated definitions of each
Web site construct and tallied their occurrences as present or absent in a systematic manner.
Prior to beginning the campaign site coding process, the undergraduate students received three hours of training from the author, followed by an initial reliability check of several sites. With slight retraining for the variables of partisanship and political opposition, satisfactory levels of intercoder reliability were obtained. At that point, one undergraduate coder analyzed the first half of the campaign site variables, while the second coder analyzed the latter portion.
77 Most classifications were objective and categorical, and the intercoder reliabilities were expectedly high. Kassarjian (1977) notes that researchers should aim for coefficients of reliability above 85 percent; in the present study, the average rate of intercoder reliability with the author was .932 for the first coder and .928 for the second.
The third independent coder performed a different function. After an extensive training session, the legislative sites, which were originally coded in
May 2001 by the author (see Jarvis and Wilkerson 2002), were re-examined by the coder to make sure that no major changes had occurred on the sites since the prior coding. Few major differences in the 2001 and 2002 legislative sites were reported (see Appendix for details).
78 Chapter 4: The Creative Minds Behind the Sites
If you're a voter and you're interested in learning about a candidate, you're going to log on to the Web. If you build a campaign site, you need to bring visitors there. You've got to advertise your Web site. You've got to list the site next to your logo, on your placards, on your commercials. While the campaign staff needs to be forward-thinking and proactive in coming up with ideas, Web design consultants need to have a seat at the table because a lot of times the members themselves don't think about this stuff. -- Political Web design consultant D. Almacy, telephone interview, August 9, 2002.
Candidates don't want to spend the time or effort on their sites and they don't want the bells and whistles; they want their sites to be an electronic brochure...Candidates have sites because they don't want to look old-fashioned. Basically, they know it's necessary, but they don't want to pay any money for it. That's what's sad. They can get some college kid to build their site for a couple of boxes of pizza, yet these same candidates wouldn't let Uncle Harry film their campaign commercials. -- Political Web design consultant M. Johnson, telephone interview, August 8, 2002.
I think we're only at the very beginning of the technology revolution in campaigns and in politics. I think, overall, the impact probably doubles from one election cycle to the next. However, integrating Web sites into campaigns is one of the things that candidates are doing the least well...Good campaigns are using this technology to win campaigns, but most campaigns just sit down and say, "Oh. We need a campaign site." -- Political Web design consultant P. Noble, telephone interview, August 9, 2002.
79 THE ROLE OF ADVERTISING CREATIVES ON THE WEB
Web sites are forecast to become an indispensable part of political campaigns at all levels of government in the United States. Many observers believe campaign sites are beneficial because they allow candidates to raise funds, recruit volunteers, and provide vast amounts of information to potential voters relatively quickly and inexpensively. They also add a unique dimension to campaigning that was unheard of before the arrival of the Internet and the Web.
As Hall (1997, p. 97) explains, while a politician "might pause, smile, kiss a baby or say a few words, he'd never walk away from such an encounter knowing a person's address, her preferred news sources, annual income, musical tastes, credit history, driving record, and more."
The wide array of features available makes creating a campaign Web site an important, albeit complicated, task in that everything from fundraising tools to advertisements to chat rooms can be included on a site if a candidate so chooses.
While some candidates use relatives, neighbors, or staff to sift through the mind- boggling list of possibilities, those who view Web sites as a potent weapon in the campaign arsenal typically seek the help of a Web design professional. At a time when many observers both in and outside the industry are predicting that campaign sites will become commonplace and, in fact, necessary, it is important that academics gain a deeper understanding of the mindset of the creatives who design them. As such, this chapter provides an insider's perspective on campaign
80 Web sites and the culture within which they are developed.
PRIOR RESEARCH ON ADVERTISING CREATIVES
The term "creative" is defined by Young (2000, p. 19) as "a heterogeneous group of advertising professionals--copywriters, art directors, producers, and even, in the age of the Internet--computer programmers." Besides the obvious duties of writing copy, designing logos, and choosing photography, creatives often serve as the catalyst for the "big ideas" on which the success or failure of advertising ultimately depends. Though creatives are central to the advertising industry, these individuals and the culture in which they work are often misunderstood by the outside world. Creatives, as Kover (1995, p. 604) notes, are known for viewing those "in the surrounding environment as potential enemies."
Moreover, creatives often feel the need to defend their work "against account management, against their own creative department managers, and often in opposition to research findings and the urging of clients." Kover (1995, p. 604) calls this tug-of-war "a near-inevitable result of advertising that results from the dialogue process."
A minimal amount of research has focused on advertising creatives and their thought processes over the years (Zinkhan 1993). According to Reid, King, and DeLorme (1998), almost all of the studies conducted on the subject up to this
81 point can be categorized into four distinct but related categories: (1) studies of creative decision processes (Courtney 1971; Hirschman 1989; Kover 1995;
Lavery 1993; Mondroski, Reid and Russell 1983; Moriarty and Vanden Bergh
1984; Solomon and Greenberg 1993; Taylor, Hoy and Haley 1996; Vanden
Bergh, Reid and Schorin 1983; West 1993), (2) studies of individual characteristics and creative problem-solving abilities (Auer 1976; Klebba and
Tierney 1995; Moriarty and Vanden Bergh 1984; Reid 1978; Reid and Rotfeld
1976; West 1993), (3) studies of organizational influences and ad creation (Holz,
Ryans and Shanklin 1982; Tinkham, Lane and Leung 1987; Vanden Bergh, Smith and Wicks 1986; West 1993); and (4) studies of advertising education and creativity (Kendrick, Slayden and Broyles 1996; Otnes, Oviatt and Treise 1995;
Otnes, Spooner and Triese 1993; Reid 1977; Robbs 1996; Vance 1982; Vanden
Bergh 1984). More recently, Young (2000) examined the creative differences between advertising copywriters and art directors, while White and Smith (2001) studied whether advertising professionals judge creativity in the same way as the general public.
As was discussed in Chapter Two, advertising often serves to reinforce cultural values (see Schudson 1984), and many believe that campaign Web sites -- arguably the most modern type of political advertising -- are playing an increasingly larger role in the political and cultural landscape. For this reason, academic research that examines these sites as a cultural product is needed.
82 ADVERTISING CREATIVES AND CULTURE
No studies published to date have focused on the creative culture in which
Web designers immerse themselves while developing political campaign sites -- a culture that primarily includes the designers, the candidates, and the campaign staffs who enlist their services. As was discussed in Chapter 1, our knowledge of political advertising is based largely on content analyses of ads and empirical effects studies rather than on examinations of the creative process itself. Further, though Rotzoll and Haefner (1990) assert that advertising must be considered in light of the cultural expectations set for it, our knowledge of the relationship between advertising creatives and the culture in which they create is minimal, perhaps because "culture" is an ambiguous concept that is somewhat difficult to define. Moreover, most studies on cultural systems have been conducted by anthropologists (Arensberg and Niehoff 1971; Bond 1987; Hall 1959; Hofstede
1980; Kahle 1983; Kluckhohn 1961; Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck 1961; Rokeach
1973) rather than advertisers and marketers. Nonetheless, as Taylor et al. (1996, p. 4) observe, "The thread that binds all study of culture is the assertion that culture is learned behavior constituting a complex whole that includes knowledge, beliefs, art, morals, law, and customs."
As was mentioned in the Methodology, McCracken (1986, p. 72) provides a framework for the structure and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods that can be related to this study of advertising Web creatives (see Figure
83 4.1). McCracken characterizes cultural meaning according to two terms: cultural categories (i.e. the fundamental coordinates that represent the basic distinctions a culture uses to divide up the ordinary world) and cultural principles (i.e. the values that determine how the ordinary world is organized, evaluated, and interpreted). Utilizing these concepts, he illustrates a process by which cultural meaning is transferred from the culturally constituted world to consumer goods, and eventually to the individual consumer. This study of advertising
Web creatives speaks to the first stage of cultural meaning transfer, the creation of campaign Web sites as an instrument responsible for the movement of cultural meaning.
84 MOVEMENT OF MEANING
Culturally Constituted World
Advertising/Fashion Fashion System System
Consumer Goods
Possession Exchange Grooming Divestment Ritual Ritual Ritual Ritual
Individual Consumer
KEY: Location of Meaning
Instrument of Model Transfer
Figure 4.1: Model of Cultural Meaning Transfer (McCracken 1986)
This chapter qualitatively explores the mindset of political Web designers as they navigate the process of developing campaign sites. Drawing from
McCracken (1986), the author sought to understand the cultural categories and principles that define advertising creativity on the Web as viewed by its creators.
85 Because advertising "expresses a culture's history, values, norms, and beliefs"
(Taylor et al. 1996, p. 4), understanding the culture in which campaign Web sites are produced will reveal how politicians in the upper echelons of government are integrating -- or are not integrating -- Web sites into their daily lives. The interviews should also provide rich information about how campaign sites fit into today's political climate.
As is described in Chapter Three, thirteen Web design professionals were selected for the interviews. While thirteen is a modest number, the limited sample is acceptable since the designers are all looked upon as very accomplished in their profession, and are regarded as elites in the area (Dexter 1970).
FINDINGS
Four broad categories central to the creative culture of campaign Web site design emerged from the interviews: (1) development of site content, (2) site maintenance, (3) site features and functions; and (4) site integration. The next several sections describe these categories in detail, and are followed by a discussion of three additional areas of interest. The chapter concludes with an examination of the implications of the interview findings.
86 Development of Site Content
One of the first tasks political Web designers face is the development of
Web site content. In the world of campaign site design, there are two standard options: ready-made templates and custom designs. All but one of the interviewees in the study stated that they provided their clients with personalized sites rather than cookie-cutter templates, though a few participants offered both.
A small number of designers in the sample primarily used content provided by the campaigns, and most of the individuals in this group believed that the campaigns they worked for supplied them with enough ready-made information to result in a satisfactory site.
Many candidates provide content because your Web site, campaign literature, ads, etcetera, should all have a similar message and a similar look. If the campaign already has a complete marketing campaign in print, [our company] will use that as a base for the Web site. The larger campaigns often send ready-made packages. I7
We offer a Web site creation and content management system that basically provides the container that [candidates] put their information into. We don't come up with the actual content, but we make sure the message gets across and we also assist with design. The politicians like it because we have over 200 templates, or we'll custom design one. Most campaigns go for the custom design because they have their own particular color schemes and content needs. The candidate has absolute freedom to determine the content, though we will help candidates to the extent that we don't want them to hurt themselves. I2
87 Most designers in the study, however, expressed dissatisfaction with this type of low-level creative involvement. This group believed that a truly collaborative effort between the design firm and the candidate produced the best results. Often, the phrase "team approach" or "team effort" was used to describe the process:
Usually, the text and photos are provided by the campaign. The look and feel of the site is more of a collaborative process. Everyone works together. I3
Typically, the campaign manager will draft most of the material for the site, but they often ask [our agency] for advice during the process. Larger campaigns may even hire an Internet consultant to help develop content. Regardless, the campaign and/or candidate always has the final say. I4
Deciding on the content of a campaign site usually entails a team approach...Candidates winning votes is the bottom line. I5
Determining the content of a campaign site is a team effort; fifty to sixty percent is based on what the campaign says it needs, thirty to forty percent is [the design company's] creative input, and the remaining percentage is a collaboration where both sides try to find better ways to do what they need to do. I8
I typically sit down with the candidate or campaign staff and listen to what they'd like the Web site to do. Then, I formulate a plan...I have a lot of creative freedom. I11
In short, while a few of the designers preferred to let the candidate and campaign handle the development of site content, most expressed a desire for greater creative control, and several indicated that their creative abilities were
88 significantly affected by how much -- or how little -- they were involved in the creative process. As one agency principal noted, "I'm hoping in the future to get in earlier in the [design] process because the things candidates tend to give me don't translate well onto the Web5." Additionally, a solid working relationship with the candidate/campaign was cited as a must for maintaining a healthy culture within which to create.
While creative differences seemed to factor heavily in the quality of campaign site design, the cost of building a site was also an issue, especially for challengers. One agency president stated that her firm's system of billing by the hour often prompted candidates to provide their own Web site materials; conversely, a majority of the designers who charged flat fees felt that their services were extensively used by clients. When asked the cost of a typical congressional site, some respondents remained mum; others provided estimates ranging from as little as $3,000 to in excess of $60,000.
Site Maintenance
The second area of discussion to emerge from the interviews involved campaign site maintenance; that is, the day-to-day updating and editing of a site.
In contrast to their feelings on Web site design, almost all of the participants
5 I6. 89 agreed that letting the campaign perform simple tasks such as adding press releases and updating events calendars was the best practice. At least one designer even offered software through which candidates could log in from anywhere in the world to make simultaneous changes to their sites.
This division of duties between designer and candidate was viewed as the most timely and cost-efficient method because, as one agency president explained, "The cost of paying a professional to fully maintain a site is a disincentive to campaigns, so that's a bad way to arrange it6." Even the designers who did not yet offer campaigns the tools and training needed to handle simple site maintenance indicated that they were moving in that direction because in addition to the cost savings, as one interviewee observed, "There are more web- savvy people around. Even teenage volunteers are very knowledgeable...People are learning that it's not rocket science7."
In sum, opinions varied as to how much involvement the Web designers thought was appropriate in terms of site maintenance; while a few preferred to provide site updates on a regular basis, the majority believed that the most satisfactory approach was to train campaigns to maintain their own sites. All of the individuals, however, indicated that as the technology gets simpler, the responsibility of site maintenance will increasingly be placed in the hands of campaigns, giving design consultants more time to focus on creative matters.
6 I3.
90 Most Important Site Function
The third area of significance derived from the interviews was campaign site functionality. Asking each participant what they believed to be the most important task of a campaign site generated a wide variety of responses; some were specific to the designers' feelings, while others reflected the beliefs of candidates. Frequently, as is often the case in offline advertising (Kover 1995), the views of the two parties were at odds.
Site Functions Most Important to Designers
Overall, two campaign site functions were mentioned as equally important from the designers' perspective: online fundraising and communication capabilities. Following, each feature is described in further detail.
Online Fundraising. While the Internet's success in raising campaign funds was limited in 1996 (the Dole campaign raised roughly $100,000 and the Clinton campaign even less), there was a notable increase in online contributions during the 1998 election season (Friedly 1998). The ability to take online donations was viewed by all of the interviewees as crucial to a campaign's success:
7 I5. 91 Fundraising is the most important feature, but candidates have had moderate to good success, down to no success at all in raising funds online...It depends on the candidate's ability to place the site at the forefront rather than just adding a contribution feature to the site...Candidates have to promote the site often, mentioning it in every speech and at every fundraiser for online fundraising to work. I8
Particularly with the changes in the contribution laws, the ability to reach as many potential constituents and get those $100, $200, and $300 contributions will become incredibly important. I7 The ability to take contributions is essential, but this tool is often used ineffectively by candidates. I2
It's pointless to put up a site without online fundraising. I4
Though the designers viewed online fundraising an essential element of an effective campaign site, they also agreed that most candidates don't currently use this feature to the fullest. However, many predicted that the situation would change in light of the 2001 passing of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform bill, which calls for a ban on soft money and raises individual contribution limits from
$1,000 to $2,000. The widespread implications of this bill, they believe, will be an eye-opener for candidates not yet involved in online fundraising.
Communication Capabilities. Trent and Friedenberg (1995, p. 301) propose that communication is "the heart of the modern political campaign." Goldenberg and
Traugott (1984) further assert that articulating political stances and ideas to citizens in an effort to glean votes is the main goal of candidates during elections.
92 To this end, the interviewees deemed communication with site visitors as crucial to a campaign's success, and at least as important as online fundraising.
A site needs to get the candidate's message out. You hit people in the face with who you are and what you are. You don't want to be vague or fuzzy. I11
A campaign site's main purpose is to communicate with activists -- a candidate's small, but active, group of supporters...A whole new world of things will become practical and cost-effective when we're actually communicating with voters. I3
The product that you're selling is the candidate. You want to get your message out to voters who will vote for you and you want to create voters who will vote for you. I5
Communication with site users is the most important function of a campaign site. This entails actual text, comparative issue positions, and some interactive features related to campaigns. In my opinion, volunteer coordination and fundraising are not as important [as communication]. I8
The opportunities campaign sites provide for communication with online visitors appeared in many of the interview transcripts. Though the participants sometimes disagreed as to who the primary audience is at this point in time -- activists, casual supporters, undecided voters, or journalists -- all believed that communication is, and will continue to be, an extremely important function of campaign sites.
In fact, though often overlooked by candidates, many consultants cited e- mail as the most significant communication medium of the future. More
93 specifically, they praised the capabilities of the "e-mail updates" feature, an innovation that allows campaigns to collect the e-mail addresses of supporters, then send them regular updates of events, news releases, and other campaign information. Stressed one participant, "It's all about e-mail. It's more about e-mail than your Web site. I try to structure sites that allow people to readily offer up their e-mail addresses so they feel like they're a part of the campaign...and to get them to push more people to the Web site8." When asked if people enjoy receiving e-mail updates from campaigns, the same designer replied enthusiastically, "Yes! Dozens and dozens of people a day sign up. People want to be informed9." Another agency owner added, "The e-mail update function is the most important because it allows people to get constant information...They only have to be active once, then they become passive participants10."
A related and equally significant communication feature noted by several designers was a site's ability to mobilize supporters by providing interested visitors with the tools to send information about the candidate to friends and family members. Importantly, most participants believed that this type of information-sharing provides more credibility than televised campaign advertisements or stump speeches, since Web visitors are seeking out the information themselves rather than having it forced upon them. As one design
8 I10. 9 I4. 10 I9. 94 firm principal explained, "On television, often we're being fed phony information from slick politicians [he uses his own state's governor as an example]. On the other hand, the ability to share information with my neighbor...the underground buzz...grass roots...lets your users become your marketers11."
Finally, the ability to recruit online volunteers was mentioned by several interviewees as an important communication function. One designer who was particularly excited about this feature noted that campaign sites offer candidates the ability to quickly and inexpensively mobilize supporters by building "a volunteer army12." Another participant stated, "After e-mail, soliciting volunteers is the second-most important function a site can perform13."
Site Function Most Important to Candidates
The previous section recounts the designers' opinions as to which functions they believe are most essential when creating a campaign site; namely, online fundraising, e-mail, and volunteer solicitation capabilities. Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, when the interviewees were asked which features candidates found most important, it was found that online fundraising, and only online fundraising, currently takes top priority in the minds of candidates.
11 I1. 12 I6.
95
Online Fundraising. Though other site features were mentioned on occasion, most designers indicated that the most popular feature (and sometimes, the only feature) requested by candidates was the ability to solicit online contributions.
One interviewee exclaimed, "John McCain's fundraising success on his campaign site led many candidates to think 'Wow! What am I missing if I don't have online fundraising14?'" Another agreed, adding, "Candidates all want to take donations online -- especially after McCain...It's largely e-mail based fundraising that allowed [McCain] to stay in the race as late as he did15." One designer even suggested that many candidates construct campaign sites with the exclusive goal of soliciting contributions, stating, "A lot of candidates initially approach the campaign site as solely a fundraising vehicle, then come around to realizing it's also a great way to provide information16."
Still, most of the interviewees emphasized that online fundraising could only be successful if candidates posted informative and creative Web sites, and if those sites were regularly promoted in other campaign media. While a few candidates have proven that they understand this concept (consider the Dole story at the beginning of Chapter 1), it was the consultants' belief that most candidates have not yet caught on. Further, persuading candidates to advertise their Web sites
13 I9. 14 I4. 15 I6.
96 often proved problematic for the designers. As one explained, "Even though I try to convince candidates to put their Web address on every piece of literature they send out, it's still very difficult to convince candidates to put Web addresses even on the bottom of their yard signs. You wouldn't believe how hard it is17." This attitude, they believe, will have to change if candidates wish to reap the full benefits of online fundraising.
Site Integration
The preceding statement raises the question of whether or not candidates view Web sites as an integral part of their campaigns -- the fourth theme to arise from the interview transcripts. Most respondents agreed with Schneider (2000) that candidates do not yet view campaign sites with the same significance that they do television ads; in fact, one agency president stated that "ninety-plus percent" of his clients had not yet incorporated Web sites into their political campaigns18. The participants expressed both frustration and bewilderment at candidates' lackadaisical attitudes toward campaign sites, particularly since the designers themselves felt that Web sites would become paramount to campaigns in the future. As for how this predicament will be resolved, a majority of the
16 I4. 17 I6.
97 consultants believe there is currently a generational gap in the acknowledgment of campaign sites as a legitimate and effective campaign communication tool. Many also think that competition, or a lack thereof, plays a major role, since the incumbent advantage seems to figure so prominently into most congressional races (see Abramowitz 2000). Thus, their hope is that as younger politicians take office, and if the incumbent advantage somehow diminishes, the Web will be accepted more fully as a campaign advertising medium:
Younger members running for office are definitely embracing the Web. It was never a part of the older incumbents' world. They're incumbents. They don't need it. They're not interested. However, as younger people start to run, they'll all be computer literate and they'll all have phenomenal Web sites. I can imagine these people doing all kinds of things. I11
There is definitely a generational shift...The people who get it use the Web as a core part of their campaigns. The generation still in charge is still the baby boomers who are not yet knowledgeable of the power of this medium. I2
The more hotly contested the race is, the better the sites are likely to be. I3
It's going to take a whole new generation of candidates under the age of forty before this thing takes off. Most campaigns don't have a grasp of this technology. They don't feel like it's worth it...The Internet is not going to do what it can do for political campaigns until the old way of thinking is gone and a new generation of candidates comes to the forefront. Old-time political consultants who have been at it for twenty-five years are hesitant because they haven't figured out how to make money on the Internet. I10
18 I8. 98 You have a lot of members in Congress who have been in for fifty years [sites John Dingle as an example] who say, "I've been elected for the past umpteen years, I've been serving my constituents, and a Web site is not something that I want to sink $10,000 into." We target a lot of freshman Congresspersons because they tend to be younger, to understand the Internet. And, they have staff that understands the Internet. I13
Despite generational differences and a frequent lack of legitimate competition, political observers have spent the last several years predicting that the "upcoming election cycle" or the "next presidential election" will be the one in which the Web will irreversibly transform the political landscape (see Johnson,
Braima and Sothirajah 1999). Yet even the most experienced forecasters have been proven incorrect. Weise (2000, p. 37) calls this pattern the "Christmas effect," comparing it to the tendency of retailers and journalists to excitedly predict that, "This is the holiday shopping season electronic commerce will really break through!" Perhaps this is the reason many of the designers, when asked when they expect to see a change in candidates' attitudes toward campaign sites, were hesitant to pinpoint an exact election cycle or year. On the other hand, a few of the respondents offered educated guesses. One agency president stated,
"Everyone expected that 2002 would be a watershed for everything and that didn't happen...Things will be getting a lot more high-tech and candidates will be a lot more dedicated in 200419." Another predicted that campaign sites would become
19 I4. 99 necessary "maybe in 2004 or 200620."
Some consultants pointed to events, rather than exact dates, that they believed would propel Web sites into the forefront of campaign communication.
One agency principal felt that "generating more interest will require a presidential campaign21." Another saw online voting as the catalyst, stating, "When online voting arrives...that will make Web sites the most important part of the campaign...I think that ballots will have links to relevant Web sites where you're only a few clicks away from a huge amount of information that you just don't have at this point [with ballot box voting]22." In any case, all of the designers expressed certainty that the Web would become a permanent campaign fixture, and most believed that it would be sooner rather than later.
Bimber (1997) suggests that just as television exerted little influence on the political process until the 1960s and 1970s, even though sets began infiltrating
American homes in the 1940s, it may take a decade or more for the Internet to meet the grand expectations of many observers. Scholars and others will have to wait and see whether Bimber's rather conservative theory or the Web designers' more optimistic predictions about campaigns and the Web are correct.
20 I1. 21 I8. 22 I6. 100 ADDITIONAL AREAS OF INTEREST
While the preceding four areas encompassed the majority of the interview findings and appeared to have the most impact on the creative process, three additional topics yielded information the author found enlightening: (1) most effective sites, (2) site features to avoid; and (3) the future role of the Web in political campaigns.
Most Effective Sites
While there is no one answer to the question of what constitutes the perfect political campaign site, many have proposed worthwhile ideas. Max Fose
(2002), Internet manager for John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign, suggests that a Web site is effective so long as the candidate is: (1) educating the voter, (2) getting people involved, (3) soliciting campaign contributions, (4) lobbying for a cause; and (5) getting people out to vote. Though the interviewees felt that many candidates have been slow to address these issues, and most agreed with Weise,
(2000, p. 38) who calls today's campaign sites, "almost uniformly dull, seldom more than static versions of the brochures that will fill mailboxes come October," there were some notable exceptions. When participants were asked which sites they were most proud of, all readily offered at least one or two examples, along
101 with reasons as to why those sites were particularly effective. During these discussions, the interviewees often mentioned two distinct factors: specific sites features and the attitude of the candidate and campaign staff.
Two prominent examples mentioned were the 2000 Bill Bradley for
President site and George W. Bush's 2000 campaign site:
I'm most proud of the Bill Bradley site because it was so effective for the organization...It raised almost $2 million for the campaign, and was a significant way to communicate with supporters and activists. I3
I'm most proud of the George W. Bush campaign site...It's the one that we broke the most ground on. The site was a great political machine that we'll be able to plug in when Bush runs for re-election. I13
Other sites noted for their outstanding features included the 2002 congressional campaign sites for challenging House candidates Mike Michaud (D-ME) and
Mark Shriver (D-MD):
I believe the Michaud for Congress site is the most feature-rich in the history of candidate Web sites for congressional races. The site features include an online town hall forum that has precipitated amazing conversations, a feature for blind users, screensavers, detailed district maps, and a Palm Pilot version of the site. I9
The Mark Shriver congressional campaign site boasts lots of neat features, including compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and a section in Spanish. I4
102 Just as important as site functionality was the cooperation and attitude of the candidate and campaign staff. One consultant found working with the Bush campaign to be an ideal situation. He explained, "As far as a client who is willing to grasp the Internet and take it to the next level, George W. Bush was willing to do that...more than any campaign we worked with...The Bush people came up with a lot of visionary, forward-thinking ideas23." The effectiveness of a team approach was echoed in other sentiments as well. As one designer stated, "The
Michaud campaign believed in me to create something dynamic...They said 'do whatever you want24.'" Another called his relationship with the campaigns of Rep.
Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) and challenging gubernatorial candidate Andrew Cuomo
(D-NY) "tremendous partnerships," noting that both candidates "understand the power of this medium25." One respondent pointed to the site of an unnamed state
Senate candidate as his favorite because the candidate was "really innovative and actively involved in the planning26." The respondent found this approach refreshing due to the fact that, as he put it, "Sometimes all we'll get is an envelope full of campaign literature and, it's like, 'here - turn this into something.'"
In sum, as has been mentioned several times throughout this chapter, the designers indicated that the most successful campaign sites, and the best culture in which to create, are a result of designers and candidates working hand-in-hand to
23 I13. 24 I9. 25 I2.
103 reach an established set of goals. Moreover, they suggest that if a candidate is imaginative, progressive, and open to new ideas, all parties involved are likely to be happier with the process and with the final product.
Site Features to Avoid
When the designers were asked what, if anything, they would avoid posting on a campaign site, some respondents focused on specific features, while others were more philosophical. One agency president advises his clients not to use identifying cookies, stating that he senses a "privacy pushback" among citizens. He added, "We think in politics that's a dangerous thing to do...you have the potential for backlash27." Another individual cautions her clients against using open-ended communication tools such as billboards and chat rooms, because she believes these features provide "an opportunity for your opponent to take over your site28." Still another designer wary of the opposition stated that he counsels his clients to avoid posting events calendars because "not only are candidates pretty much committed to an event once it's posted...Your opponent knows everything you're doing29." Only one consultant replied, "There's nothing I
26 I7. 27 I2. 28 I3. 29 I5. 104 wouldn't put on a campaign Web site30." Additional responses included: "negative things about the other candidate31," "features that might make the site load too slowly32," and "content that is out of date33."
One participant focused on another issue altogether, insisting, "Under construction is a big no-no. You don't ever link to a section that doesn't exist34."
Interestingly, this designer compared the situation to "going to a fast food restaurant and seeing ads for a new, great food, going to the counter and asking for it, and then hearing 'Actually, that won't be available until next month.'"
In sum, the Web designers were largely apprehensive about allowing candidates to post information that might be used in a negative fashion by opponents, or that could be misunderstood or misconstrued by citizens or members of the media, particularly in a forum where politicians are not able to defend themselves as they could in a debate or a press conference. As later chapters will reveal, it appears that most candidates agree with this notion.
Future Role of the Web in Political Campaigns
Toward the end of each interview, the Web designers were asked for their
30 I8. 31 I6. 32 I5. 33 I8.
105 parting thoughts on the issue of political campaigns and the Web. This question was purposefully broad and open-ended in hopes that the author would be able to capture any significant information not touched upon during the interviews. The query resulted in a number of compelling responses, most having to do with the future of online political campaigns:
The Web will change the way in which we elect our public officials...We will be able to share information in this space in a way that we don't do now at dinner parties...I am passionate about bringing this about sooner rather than later...We can't be moving fast enough into this space. I6
The [candidates] who integrate the Internet as part of their overall campaign strategy will be most successful...There's a lot of power in the Internet that is yet to be unleashed. I1
This is a remarkably powerful tool for political campaigns in the future. Campaign sites as a part of an integrated campaign will do nothing but grow and will become much more important in the future...This generation of voters are viewers--they're not readers. I2
Candidates need to get more aggressive about how they use this medium. There will come a time when this could be a deciding factor in an election. Candidates view the Internet as merely a way to put more money into their bank accounts so they can run more television ads. They need to change that mindset. I8
One of the reasons the Internet will be so important long-term...It's very difficult for people who want to be educated to learn about campaigns from a 10- to 15-second sound bite. I7
34 I13. 106 Again, all of the interviewees were adamant that Web sites would become central to the political campaigns of the future. Moreover, most strongly believe that the
Web will eventually change the way we view candidates, campaigns, and politics in general.
IMPLICATIONS
The purpose of this chapter was to explore the culture of campaign site creation through the eyes of political Web design professionals. The interview findings presented in this chapter have several implications for politicians, citizens, and advertising creatives in all mediums. They also provide suggestions for future research, which are discussed in the concluding chapter of this dissertation.
As was indicated in the opening comments and throughout this chapter, the well-documented stresses that exist between offline advertising creatives and their clients (see Kover, James and Sonner 1997) are also present in the world of political Web design. Based upon the interview data, it appears that the process of developing a campaign site is often a tug-of-war between Web consultants and candidates that leaves many designers feeling the need for more creative input or,
107 as one designer stated, "a seat at the table.35" It also seems that all parties involved in the creative process would benefit from utilizing the "team approach36" mentioned by several of the interviewees. Ideally, in taking this approach, candidates would carefully and clearly specify their campaign objectives, while designers would work thoughtfully to meet the candidates' goals and construct their Web sites accordingly.
In a related matter, the interviews revealed that political sites are still being held on the back burners of most campaigns, much to the chagrin of the consultants. Put simply, it seems that candidates, at least at this point in time, think of campaign sites as more of an afterthought than an absolute. One agency principal summarized it this way:
I believe that at this point in time, candidates have sites because they have to. The level of interest with campaigns is not where I'd like to see it. It's not where I expected it to be...By and large, candidates don't devote resources to this. Most candidates recognize you need to have [a site], but it's still kind of on the periphery...There are only a few anecdotes of candidates who have fully integrated this into their campaigns. I8
Based upon these findings, it seems there are at least four possible reasons for candidates' hesitancy to rely on campaign Web sites in the same capacity they
35 I13. 36 I5. 108 do television advertising. These reasons, which will continue to surface throughout this dissertation, are: control, resources, generational differences, and competition.
Control. First is the issue of control; politicians have always been reluctant to share information and, as such, it seems logical that candidates would be averse to using a medium in which the information they post can, as was mentioned by several of the interviewees, be used to the advantage of the opposition. This is an interesting predicament, because while the Web allows candidates to quickly and easily post helpful items such as contact information and events calendars, this same technology also facilitates pressure for candidates to post other types of information, such as contributions and campaign expenditures, that they might not be so eager to divulge. While this sensitive data has always been available to the public, in the not-so-distant past it was much more difficult to obtain. That being said, however, it seems that if true online democracy is to take place, candidates must learn to accept the benefits of technology along with the drawbacks.
Resources. The second reason candidates have yet to embrace the Web as a campaign medium may have to do with resources -- another issue that was often brought up in the interviews. Though building a viable campaign site is a relatively inexpensive prospect when compared to the cost of producing and
109 airing televised ads, it appears that candidates with limited resources prefer simple, inexpensive campaign sites created by friends, family, or campaign volunteers to the more costly sites offered by Web design professionals. The issue of resources is likely to be of particular concern to challengers, who often enter congressional races under-funded, unrecognized, and inexperienced. While most challengers are likely concerned with saving money, they may also be more interested in investing in push mediums like television that can get their messages out to the undecided masses, rather than in pull mediums like the Internet, which tend to draw in those who are already supporters.
Generational Differences and Competition. Finally, many of the interviewees insisted that the Web has not yet become a mainstream campaign medium because it is not currently embraced by older politicians or by those in less competitive races. Thus, many believe that Web sites will play an increasingly prominent role in political campaigns as younger, less established candidates run for office. While there is little doubt that younger politicians are generally more in touch with computer and Internet technology than their more senior colleagues, it is uncertain whether the Web will replace traditional television advertising, even as more tech-savvy men and women take office, and even if the incumbent advantage diminishes. At most, it seems likely that the Web will be given a larger complementary role within campaigns, rather than a primary one. For instance,
110 candidates might run ads specifically directing viewers to their sites, as George
W. Bush did in 2000, or they might choose to mention their sites more often in speeches and debates, as was the case with John McCain in 2000 and Bob Dole in 1996.
Additionally, as many interviewees predicted, candidates may begin to recognize e-mail as an important internal campaign tool, deeming it useful for such tasks as targeting undecided voters, organizing activists, and soliciting contributions. As was already noted, the success of the McCain presidential campaign in raising money and recruiting volunteers online has focused much candidate attention on the mobilizing power of the Web. And more recently,
Democratic Committee Chair Terry McAuliffe told the Washington Post that his party would adopt the highly successful 2002 Republican mid-term election strategy of supplementing television ads with localized messages sent via e-mail or direct mail to voters. In fact, the DNC is said to be greatly increasing its e-mail capabilities and anticipates being able to send 10 million messages per week by
2004 (Balz 2003).
As to what the future holds for campaigns in cyberspace, one agency president theorized that as these issues of control, cost, generational differences, and competition are resolved, "There will come a time when this could be a deciding factor in an election37." This comment brings about several intriguing
37 I8. 111 questions. Why do Web designers, as well as many academics and journalists, think the current situation will change, and what makes these individuals so certain? Further, what is the role of creatives in the campaign design process? Are they simply trying to help reluctant politicians along or are they, like so many other types of advertisers, attempting to create a need for their product? In other words, is this the rhetoric of an industry just trying to make a buck, or of an industry relying on the past success of mediums like television?
Of course, only through history will the answers to questions such as these be revealed. In the meantime, this chapter has at least shed some light on the creative culture of campaign Web site design as experienced by those who are immersed in it. The study has also, hopefully, provided an illustration of how cultural research can make a unique contribution to the advertising literature.
112 Chapter 5: Information, Creativity, and Technology on Congressional Sites
Those on Capitol Hill today who still think Yahoo is what you call your opponent, who hate e-mail because it means more constituent views to answer, or who would rather gripe about the Internet than understand it, risk being swept away by convergence...Fearing technology never stops it. Taming technology starts with welcoming it. -- Bailey, D. (2002, p. 87). Harvard International Journal for Press/Politics, 5.
The Internet can be programmed to mimic all the other instruments in the campaign orchestra, from the television to the window sign. But no one really knows what to do with the baton. -- Cornfield, M. (2001, p. 41). Campaigns & Elections.
With so many Americans regularly using the Internet at home, work, and school, it seems unusual that most campaigns haven't created deeper, more robust Web sites to reach their constituents. Smart politicians who understand the Internet will have a real edge over their competition. -- Bivings, G. (in Theodorou 2002, p. 1). U.S. Newswire.
The comments above reflect a theme found in the sentiments of many political strategists: the Web may become a considerable force in politics and, as a campaign medium, it cannot be overlooked. A campaign Web site, they believe, can transform curious visitors into active supporters, and can provide potential voters with an abundance of important information. A Web site can also serve as
113 an easily accessible "campaign office" that stays open twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week at a minimal cost. With this in mind, it would seem that any candidate with a computer, a mouse, and a few thousand dollars would leap at the opportunity to build a top-notch Web site. As the comments by the Web design consultants interviewed in Chapter Four indicate, however, many candidates are not taking advantage of the benefits that the Internet and the Web have to offer.
The following two chapters present findings from a content analysis undertaken to assess the Web sites of candidates running for the U.S. House of
Representatives during the 2002 election season. Information from the campaign sites is also compared with data collected by the author in a separate content analysis of legislative sites (Jarvis and Wilkerson 2002) to determine whether candidates or House members are more effectively selling themselves online.
Occasionally, relevant comments from the Web design interviewees are offered for comparison purposes.
In the current chapter, the author addresses the study's first three hypotheses by examining the Web site variables of information, creativity, and technological innovation. Chapter Six focuses on the last two hypotheses, exploring the areas of online partisan content and political opposition. While not mentioned in the hypotheses, online political accessibility is also discussed. This approach was taken because the sites were fairly similar in terms of the first three variables, while for the remaining variables the results were markedly different.
114 PRACTICES OF CANDIDATES AND LEGISLATORS
At their most basic level, political campaigns, of which Web sites are now a part, are organized efforts to inform, persuade, and mobilize citizens. According to Hart (2000, p. 230), "an ideal political campaign invigorates the nation." Hart further asserts that campaigns have a tendency to reengage the public, discourage
Beltway language, and encourage creativity. Popkin (1991, p. 8) concurs, stating,
"Campaigns are able to reach people and involve them in the election." Popkin reminds us that the term campaign is rooted in the French word for "open country"-- a fitting phrase since campaigns, as he notes, "bring politicians out of the capital and into the open country." This practice, it seems, occurs in campaigns ranging from small, local races to those at the congressional and presidential level.
While candidates tend to stay out among the people, legislators are known for their preference to remain within the isolated confines of the Capitol. In fact, though Kernell (1997, p. 2) proposes that the modern president advances his personae and policies by going over the heads of Congress and "appealing to the
American public for support," legislators often debate policy and make decisions without the input (and interference) of the citizens who elect them. As Ruskin (as cited in Ault and Jones 1999, ¶ 6) states, "Some congressional offices just want to plug their ears and slam the door shut." Siegelmen (as cited in Turner 2001, ¶ 8) makes a similar observation, noting, "Many legislators are known for making
115 deals behind closed doors with lobbyists and special interest groups." Further,
White (2001, p. 1) proposes that while political issues are ideally debated in the open, the public more often than not receives only watered-down, secondhand information. He claims, "Very few have access to information, input into the choices being considered, and influence over the decisions."
As was briefly described in Chapter Three, due to the public nature of campaigns, the author theorized that candidates would put forth greater energy and effort in the construction of their Web sites than legislators. As such, in constructing the first three hypotheses for this study, it was assumed that campaign sites would naturally be more information-rich, more creative, and more technologically innovative than the official government sites of U.S.
House members. The bulk of this chapter outlines the findings for each of these three variables, while interpretations of the findings are discussed at the end of the chapter.
INFORMATION CONTENT ON CAMPAIGN AND LEGISLATIVE WEB SITES
The first hypothesis predicted that House candidates would share more information on their campaign sites than would legislators on their official government sites. This prediction seemed appropriate since the literature indicates
116 that campaigns are largely meant to provide voters with the information they need to make educated decisions at the polls (see Popkin 1991). Moreover, Sweeney
(as cited in Thurber and Nelson 1995, p. 27) claims that providing voters with information should be the primary focus of campaigns. He states, "Personal values or belief systems and personal history are vital bits of information people use to make decisions about other people."
Given these facts, it was assumed that candidates would be eager to share information about themselves and their political beliefs on the practically unlimited space the Web provides. The first hypothesis, however, was not supported by the data. Basic frequencies showed that in seven of the eight relevant categories related to information, legislators posted slightly more content overall than candidates. There were significant differences between the groups with respect to only two values, with legislators greatly outperforming candidates in the areas of basic issues and press releases (see Table 5.1). The eight relevant
(i.e. applicable) categories that comprised the information variable included: biographies, contact information, district information/maps, basic issues, controversial issues, press releases, privacy statements, and notice of when the site had last been updated. Each variable is explained in further detail in the subsequent paragraphs (a complete description can be found in the Appendix).
Biographies were the first area examined for the variable of information.
As Jalonick (2001, p. 40) points out, biographies are a "key strategic element" of
117 political sites because they can disseminate information to a politician's base, build confidence in constituents, supply facts to the media, and provide a personal touch. Results of the content analysis showed that 98 percent of House members posted a biography, as did 94 percent of candidates. However, the majority of biographies from both groups were considered by the author and the independent coders to be largely standardized and impersonal. To borrow an expression from
Campaigns & Elections editor Ron Faucheux (1998, p. 7), the biographies in this sample were often "as inspiring as a toaster manual and as expressive as grand jury testimony." The following biography from the legislative site of
Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA) is typical:
118
Illustration 5.1: Biography from the site of Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA).
Reading Boucher's biography leaves one with the impression that the legislator has no interests outside of politics. A description of Boucher's family, a series of snapshots, or an explanation of the congressman's hobbies would help visitors get to know Boucher on a more personal level. This type of rich, narrative information would also provide an element of warmth that is often found on the campaign trail but is lacking on the Web.
119 The next area measured for the information variable was contact information. Almost all (97%) of the legislators in the sample offered contact information, as did a majority of the candidates (93%). These statistics give the appearance that both groups are easily accessible; however, the results are somewhat misleading. While legislators provided slightly more contact information overall, in reality, it was found that legislators were actually much less accessible than candidates -- and almost impossible for non-constituents to communicate with. In fact, as was discovered in a separate experiment conducted by the author, of the 196 politicians who responded to a short e-mail concerning their Web sites, ninety-eight percent (N=44) were candidates while only two percent (n=1) were legislators (see Appendix). As was indicated in the previous section, the issue of accessibility is further discussed in Chapter Six.
Press releases were the third area comprising the information variable.
The results indicated that legislators offered a significantly higher percentage of press releases, or at least links to press releases, on their homepages than did candidates (95% vs. 71%; p<.01). This finding was unexpected, since several of the Web designers interviewed in the preceding chapter, as well as others outside the design industry (see Connell 1998), have indicated that the press is a primary online target audience for politicians. In fact, one recent survey of the media's
Internet habits indicated that a full 92 percent of journalists conduct online research (Middleburg and Ross 2000). The data also revealed that political
120 reporters are increasingly using the Web to obtain press releases, and are regularly perusing the homepages of politicians. As Dallas Morning News reporter Jeffrey
Weiss (as cited in Cochran 1996, p. 40) observes, "A political reporter who's not online is behind the curve a little bit."
While the frequency of press releases varied greatly for both groups, over one-third of the legislators who posted releases provided three (20%) or six (16%) releases, while almost sixty percent of the candidates offered only one (31%) or two (28%). The legislator with the most press releases on his homepage (n=31) was Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA); the candidate with the most press releases on his homepage (n=16) was Joe Turnham, a Democratic challenger from Alabama.
Judging from these numbers, it appears that Inslee and Turnham recognize members of the media as a significant online audience (Shaw 2002).
Since providing information on issue positions is a primary function of campaigns (see Hart 2000), the results of the fourth measurement under the information variable, basic political issues, were surprising. Issues such as taxes, education, and health care were mentioned by a significantly higher percentage of legislators than candidates (80% vs. 48%; p<.01). Numbers aside, however, few politicians from either group went into detail about basic issues on their homepages, and often they were simply omitted altogether. On the rare occasions that basic issues were elaborated on, it was almost always by legislators. This finding is even more puzzling when coupled with the fact that various studies
121 have shown that information about candidate issue positions is the most sought after type of online political information for voters. Indeed, one recent survey indicated that of those who go online for election news, 79 percent look for information as to where candidates stand on the issues (Pew Research
Center 2003).
Of the politicians in the sample who did discuss basic political issues, the topic most frequently mentioned by Democratic legislators was the environment
(37% of Democratic legislators mentioned it), while the most popular issue among Republican legislators was taxes (63%). Taxes were also the most popular subject for Republican candidates (25% mentioned it), while the top issue for
Democratic candidates was health care (34%). That candidates and legislators would stick to the issues traditionally associated with their respective political parties was expected, and agrees with the findings of Petrocik (as cited in Thurber and Nelson 1995, p. 135), who observed:
Democratic candidates say things that Democratic candidates usually say; Republicans say things that GOP candidates usually say' a Democrat and a Republican rarely use each other's lines. They rarely even talk about the same issues, since each is attempting to define the election as a struggle over issues at which his or her party is normally regarded as a better performer. Occasionally a candidate has an atypical position (a pro-life Democrat opposes a pro-choice Republican), but a candidate's speeches and commercials are primarily about the predictable issues and issue positions of his or her party.
122 The following example from the homepage of challenging House candidate Adam Cox (D-TN) is typical of the scant attention paid to basic political issues by the candidates and legislators in the sample:
Thank you for visiting the Adam Cox for Congress Homepage. I believe that in order to move forward as a nation, we must go back to real Democratic values. Equality, Tolerance, and Justice are not just words but the foundation of our society. I am running for Congress because I want to help ensure the rights of everyone and see to it that truly no one is left behind. Now is a time for real problem solvers in Washington. People who are not afraid to roll up their sleeves and dig into the morass of problems facing social security, education, welfare, healthcare and the environment. Someone to stand up for all and fulfill the role of government that the founding fathers envisioned...A body that watches out for people, not over them.
In this passage, Cox provides solid examples of Democratic ideology while merely touching upon some of the major political issues that go along with it.
Perhaps this represents the reluctance that Cox and most other politicians feel about speaking in detail on issues, lest their remarks be misinterpreted by citizens, opponents, or members of the press. This theory concurs with the views of a number of the Web designers in Chapter Four, who indicated that many politicians are unwilling to post too much information due to the fact that it might be misunderstood or misused.
123 Privacy statements (i.e. notices informing visitors that any information they provide via the site will remain confidential) were the fifth aspect measured under the variable of information. While exactly half (50%) of all House members provided this information, candidates lagged behind at only eleven percent. These frequencies indicate that legislators are more willing to respect the privacy of visitors, while candidates may be more interested in actively gathering information about site visitors for campaigning purposes.
Interestingly, only fourteen percent of legislators and eight percent of candidates notified visitors as to when their sites were last updated -- the sixth item under the variable of information. This small percentage points to the possibility that political sites are neither maintained nor updated on a regular basis. However, as Fielding (as cited in Delany 2000, ¶ 11) cautions, neglecting to update a site can be a costly mistake. She states, "Campaign sites are under constant scrutiny by friends and enemies, and leaving outdated information in plain sight...not only can turn off potential supporters but gives fodder to the opposition. Skimping on maintenance to save a few dollars can cost more than a campaign can imagine in the long run."
The last category under the information variable in which legislators provided more content than candidates was district information/maps. Only thirty- four percent of legislators and thirty-three percent of candidates offered one or both of these features on their Web sites. Of those who did post district
124 information/maps, the content typically included the demographic breakdown of the district, as well as a map like the one below, found on the campaign site of
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA). As for those politicians who did not provide specific district information, online constituents were presumably left to wonder whether or not the candidate or legislator actually represented their particular district.
Illustration 5.2: District map from the site of incumbent candidate Darrell Issa (R-CA).
As has been noted throughout the chapter, in all but one of the eight relevant categories, legislators provided slightly more information content than candidates. The only category in which candidates offered more information than
125 House members was that of controversial issues, though the frequencies for both groups were low. This statistic was anticipated, as most politicians prefer to stick with issues that are "immune from contestation" (Beckett 1996, p. 57). Almost twice as many candidates (9%) as legislators (5%) were open to discussing sensitive political issues on the Web. The most popular controversial issues for candidates were religion and abortion (at 3% each), while for legislators, three issues were mentioned in equal measure: abortion, prayer, and race/affirmative action (at 2% each). Given the contention that has surrounded issues like affirmative action and religion in recent years, it was expected, and found, that most politicians prefer to focus on safer issues like improving the public education system, saving the environment, or fighting terrorism.
In addition to the variables mentioned above, the author examined six areas of information for candidates that were either not relevant to the legislative sites or were not measured at the time of the legislative site analysis. Those variables were: campaign staff information, disclosure of site sponsorship, endorsements, events schedules, voting information, and Web designer name. In all cases, less than sixty percent of candidates provided the pertinent information, and the low frequencies in two areas, voting information and events schedules, were especially surprising. More specifically, given the low rate of voter turnout and the increased efforts in recent years to encourage citizens to vote, it seemed unusual that only thirty-one percent of candidates offered citizens information on
126 when, where, and how to vote. The fact that only thirty-seven percent of the candidates provided events schedules was also unanticipated, since the Web has been recognized as an ideal place to provide information about campaign events and rally supporters. It is possible that events schedules were omitted because candidates did not wish to commit to certain campaign events that might have to be rescheduled or cancelled or, as was mentioned by several of the interviewees in the prior chapter, because they prefer to keep this information out of the hands of political adversaries.
Information Content by Incumbency
Additional analysis of the information variable was achieved using an
"incumbency" measure; incumbents represented thirty-eight percent of the total candidate sample, while challengers represented sixty-two percent. As was expected due to the typical House incumbent advantage, the data indicated that incumbent candidates generally offer more information content on their sites than challenging candidates.
Specifically, incumbent candidates displayed higher frequencies than challengers in ten of the fourteen categories though in only one area, that of district information/maps, were the data statistically significant. Those ten categories are as follows: campaign staff information (27% for incumbents vs.
127 20% for challengers), contact information (95% vs. 92%), district information/maps (47% vs. 24%; p<.05), endorsements (42% vs. 33%), events schedules (38% vs. 36%), press releases (76% vs. 69%), privacy statements (13% vs. 10%), campaign staff information (27 vs. 20%), disclosure of site sponsorship
(65% vs. 57%), endorsements (42% vs. 33%), events schedules (38% vs. 36%), voting information (35% vs. 29%), and Web designer name (38% vs. 37%). On the other hand, challenging candidates more frequently offered biographies (97% for challengers vs. 91% for incumbents), basic issues (49% vs. 45%), controversial issues (9% vs. 7%), and last updated information (9% vs. 7%).
Despite the efforts of some incumbents, the lack of information content on the sites of both candidates and legislators was unexpected, particularly since more than fifty years of academic research indicates that Americans are largely uninformed about political matters (see Delli Carpini and Keeter 1996), and less than half can name their congressional representative (Roper Center 2000). One political scientist went so far as to state, "The picture of uniformed voters in the election booth staring vainly at their shoes in search of cues to help in their vote decision is in all likelihood not hyperbole," (Ehrenhalt 1992, p. 11). Moreover, while television ads are expensive and are typically limited to 30 seconds or less, the Web provides an almost infinite amount of campaign space at a fraction of the cost.
128 Information Content by Party
Further analysis of the first hypothesis was achieved using a "party" measure. In brief, when the numbers were examined in terms of political party, it was found that Republican candidates and legislators generally provided more online information than their Democratic colleagues. More specifically,
Republican candidates showed higher frequencies than Democrats in the following nine areas: contact information (94% for Republicans vs. 92% for
Democrats), basic issues (28% vs. 20%), press releases (72% vs. 71%), last updated information (7% vs. 1%), district information/maps (34% vs. 32%), site sponsorship (61% vs. 58%), endorsements (37% vs. 35%), events schedules (40% vs. 32%), and Web designer name information (39% vs. 35%). Only one significant difference was found regarding voting information, of which
Democratic candidates (44%) offered twice as much as Republican candidates
(22%; p<.05). Democratic candidates also offered slightly more biographies (97% for Democrats vs. 93% for Republicans), and the groups tied in the categories of controversial issues (8% each), privacy statements (11% each), and campaign staff information (23% each).
In the legislative group, Republicans showed higher frequencies than
Democrats in four areas: district information/maps (36% for Republicans vs. 32% for Democrats), basic issues (87% vs. 71%), press releases (97% vs. 93%), and privacy statements (33% vs. 16%). Democratic legislators, on the other hand,
129 featured more biographies (91% for Democrats vs. 87% for Republicans) and contact information (86% vs. 79%); they also more frequently informed visitors when their sites had last been updated (18% vs.10%). The groups tied in the area of controversial issues (at 5% each), but again, the differences in information content between the two parties were generally slight.
Table 5.1
Percentages for Information Content
Repub Dem Incumb Chal Repub Dem Cand Legis Cand Cand Cand Cand Legis Legis Biographies (%) 94 98 93 97 91 97 87 91 Contact 93 97 94 92 95 92 79 86 District Info/Map 33 34 34 32 47* 24* 36 32 Issues (Basic) 48** 80** 28 20 45 49 87* 71* Issues (Controv) 9 5 8 8 7 9 5 5 Press releases 71** 95** 72 71 76 69 97 93 Privacy statement 11 50 11 11 13 10 33 16 Site last updated 8 14 7 1 7 9 10 18 Campaign staff 23 n/a 23 23 27 20 n/a n/a Site sponsorship 60 n/a 61 58 65 57 n/a n/a Endorsements 37 n/a 37 35 42 33 n/a n/a Events schedule 37 n/a 40 32 38 36 n/a n/a Voting information 31 n/a 22* 44* 35 29 n/a n/a Web designer 37 n/a 39 35 38 37 n/a n/a
Note: Significance tests are two-tailed. *p<.05 **p<.01
130 CREATIVE CONTENT ON CAMPAIGN AND LEGISLATIVE WEB SITES
The second area of political Web sites examined in the study was creative content. In political campaigns, one of the main tasks for candidates is to differentiate themselves from their opponents. In fact, upper-level candidates often hire the most experienced and respected ad agencies in the business and, in doing so, are able to tap into a well of creativity not found in everyday, run-of- the-mill politics. Hence, the second hypothesis predicted that the Web sites of candidates would be more creative than those of sitting members of Congress.
This hypothesis, however, was not supported. House members displayed higher frequencies in three of the four relevant measures comprising the variable of creativity (see Appendix for a complete description), two of which (graphics and children's sections) were statistically significant. This was perhaps the result of the added financial and technical assistance legislators receive from the House
Information Resources (HIR) office, an issue that will be further discussed at the end of the chapter. The only creative area in which candidates outperformed legislators was that of greeting/welcome messages (see Table 5.2).
The first creative value examined was graphics, which were characterized as images that looked like a cartoon or drawing rather than a photograph. It was found that members of Congress displayed a significantly higher percentage of graphics on their government sites than did candidates on their campaign sites
(96% vs. 48%; p<.01). The placement of photographs on the homepage was also
131 a factor in measuring site creativity. Results indicated that legislators provided more photographs than candidates, though only by a slight margin (98% of legislators vs. 93% of candidates). Additionally, whether or not a politician provided an educational children's section, often used as a teaching tool in elementary school classrooms, was used as an indicator of Web site creativity. As with the category of graphics, legislators offered a significantly higher percentage of children's sections for younger visitors than did candidates (21% vs. 1%; p<.01).
The only creative category in which candidates scored significantly higher than legislators was that of greeting/welcome messages (48% for candidates vs.
20% for legislators; p<.01). While the numbers were low for both groups, it was unanticipated that only one-fifth of legislators, who are known for working weekends to extend community ties in their districts, would make a point of welcoming constituents onto their homepage with a text statement or an
"official" letter on House stationery. As such, this omission seems to demonstrate a simple oversight on the part of the legislators rather than an intentional slighting of constituents.
While most of the greeting messages from those who offered them were short and straightforward, this one from New Hampshire Congressman John
Sununu represents one of the more creative examples:
132
Illustration 5.3: Welcome letter from the site of Rep. John Sununu (R-NH).
Sununu's greeting is creative because rather than choosing plain text, the congressman used a scanned piece of House stationery complete with his actual signature, thus providing a formal, yet personal, touch. Moreover, Sununu makes an effort to briefly explain the content of his site and encourages repeat visits by noting that the site is "a work in progress."
Under the variable of creativity, three additional values were measured for candidates only: campaign advertisements, downloadable campaign materials,
133 and pop-up messages. While these features are easy to implement and allow candidates the opportunity to significantly heighten the creativity of their sites, very few candidates took advantage of them.
First, only three percent of candidates included campaign ads on their sites. It was anticipated that this number would be much higher, since Web sites offer candidates the occasion to show their ads to as many visitors as are interested at minimal cost. Similarly, only four percent of candidates included downloadable campaign materials like screensavers, logos, and yard signs on their sites. Again, because these resources are inexpensive for campaigns to provide
(and, in fact, because visitors would absorb the costs of paper and printing), it was interesting that so few candidates offered downloadable items. Finally, just five percent of candidates used introductory pop-up ads. Of those who did, three types of messages were used in equal measure: greetings (33%), fundraising solicitations (33%), and volunteer invitations (33%). The following illustration includes two of the four pop-up ads used to encourage contributions on the campaign site of incumbent Mike Rogers (R-MI).
134
Illustration 5.4: Pop-up ads from the site of incumbent candidate Mike Rogers (R-MI).
Rogers' pop-up messages are effective because they are simple, eye-catching, and colorful. Moreover, the messages are functional; if a visitor clicks on any one of the four pop-ups, they are taken directly to a secure online contribution form where they can donate to Rogers' campaign by credit card.
135 Creative Content by Incumbency
In agreement with the previous findings on information, data from the content analysis revealed that incumbents scored higher than challengers for most creative values, though the differences were minimal and none were statistically significant. More specifically, incumbents displayed higher frequencies in the following five categories: greeting messages (51% for incumbents vs. 46% for challengers), total number of photographs (96% vs. 92%), citizen photos (24% vs.
14%), family photos (20% vs. 19%), and pop-up messages (9% vs. 2%). On the other hand, challengers featured more campaign ads (4% for challengers vs. 0% for incumbents), graphics (49% vs. 45%) and children's sections (2% vs. 0%).
Frequencies for each group were the same in the following three areas: candidate photos (91% each), D.C. photos (16% each), and downloadable campaign materials (4% each).
Creative Content by Party
As was also the case with information content, when the party measure was taken into consideration, Republican candidates and legislators scored higher than Democrats for most creative values though, again, the scores varied only slightly and none were statistically significant. In short, Republican candidates
136 offered more graphics (52% for Republicans vs. 42% for Democrats), photographs (95% vs. 90%), and children's sections (2% vs. 0%), while
Democratic candidates displayed more welcome messages (53% for Democrats vs. 43% for Republicans).
As for legislators, Republicans provided more graphics (97% for
Republicans vs. 95% for Democrats) and more greeting messages (23% vs. 18%).
On the other hand, Democrats featured more photographs (98% for Democrats vs.
97% for Republicans) and children's sections (27% vs. 16%).
Of the seven candidate-only measures under the area of creative content,
Republican candidates offered slightly more content than Democratic candidates in five categories: candidate photos (93% for Republicans vs. 87% for
Democrats), citizen photos (26% vs. 15%), family photos (29% vs. 6%; p<.01), campaign materials (6% vs. 2%), and pop-up messages (6% vs. 3%), with the only significant difference occurring in the number of family photos.
Additionally, Democratic candidates featured more campaign ads (3% for
Democrats vs. 2% for Republicans), and the groups tied in the area of D.C. photos
(at 16% each).
137
Table 5.2
Percentages for Creative Content Repub Dem Incumb Chal Repub Dem Cand Legis Cand Cand Cand Cand Legis Legis Graphics (%) 48* 96* 52 42 45 49 97 95 Greeting message 48* 20* 43 53 51 46 23 18 Children's section 1* 21* 2 0 0 2 16 27 Photos 93 98 95 90 96 92 97 98 Campaign Ads 3 n/a 2 3 0 4 n/a n/a Candidate photos 91 n/a 93 87 91 91 n/a n/a Citizen photos 18 n/a 26 15 24 14 n/a n/a D.C. photos 16 n/a 16 16 16 16 n/a n/a Family photos 19 n/a 29* 6* 20 19 n/a n/a Campaign materials 4 n/a 6 2 4 4 n/a n/a Pop-up messages 5 n/a 6 3 9 2 n/a n/a
Note: Significance tests are two-tailed. *p<.01
TECHNOLOGICAL CONTENT ON CAMPAIGN AND LEGISLATIVE WEB SITES
The third area of political Web sites examined for this dissertation was technological content. Hypothesis 3 predicted that political candidates would use more technological innovations than legislators since candidates are, by law, allowed to use some types of technology (e.g. online fundraising and volunteer recruitment features) that legislators are not permitted to utilize. This hypothesis
138 was supported by the data, though only marginally. Of the eight relevant items that made up the variable of technological content (see Appendix for a complete description), candidates displayed higher frequencies in four areas, House members scored higher on three measures, and the groups tied in one category.
Legislators scored significantly higher in the areas of counters and search engines, while candidate frequencies were statistically significant for the e-mail friends/family feature (see Table 5.3).
Candidates, in general, had slightly more audio files (4%), and video files
(6%) than legislators (who provided 3% and 4% respectively). Additionally, campaign sites more frequently offered visitors the chance to sign up for regular e-mail newsletter updates (28% for candidates vs. 18% for legislators), as well as a significantly higher percentage of e-mail friends and family features (10% vs.
0%; p<.01); surprisingly, none of the legislators provided the e-mail friends/family option recognized by the designers in Chapter Four as an extremely important feature. In contrast, the sites of House members included significantly more counters (25% for legislators vs. 6% for candidates; p<.01) and search engines (21% vs. 6%; p<.01), as well as more polls/surveys (9% vs. 7%).
Candidates and legislators featured billboards/chat rooms with the same frequency (only 1% for each group).
As with the variables of information and creativity, a number of features specific to campaign sites were measured: online selling of campaign
139 merchandise, options to provide campaign Webmaster feedback, and contribution and volunteer solicitation capabilities. In two of the four categories, the frequencies were very low; a mere one percent of candidates sold campaign merchandise through their Web sites, and only ten percent offered a form by which visitors could send feedback to the Webmaster. On the other hand, concurring with the observations of the interviewees, it was discovered that online contribution and volunteer recruitment features were quite popular among candidates (with frequencies at 79% and 77%, respectively). Notably, this finding indicates that the priorities of online candidates (i.e. money and free labor) are the same as those in offline campaigns. The example below provides an illustration of the contribution and volunteer sections found on the Web site of challenging candidate Don Smart (D-GA).
Illustration 5.5: Contribution and Volunteer sections from the site of challenging candidate Don Smart (D-GA).
140 Smart's donation and volunteer links, typical of those found on many of the campaign sites in the study, are a very noticeable part of his homepage. Moreover,
Smart makes it easy for supporters to donate or volunteer by leading them to a section where each task can be completed with a single click. The prominent placement of the links and the ease with which supporters can navigate to these sections suggest that raising funds and recruiting volunteers are a top priority for this candidate.
In sum, while a few politicians offered technologically advanced Web sites, the percentages of innovations used by both candidates and legislators were generally low. These findings concur with those of Schmitt (1997, p. 8), who observed of House and Senate Web sites, "Some legislators have taken to the new technology like Webmasters, hiring young computer experts to custom-design fancy homepages with video clips and audio feeds, but most of the others are struggling to cope with the Internet's potential."
Technological Content by Incumbency
When technological content was examined by incumbency, it was found, as with the variables of information and creativity, that incumbent candidates generally provided more technological features than challengers. Namely, incumbents in the candidate sample showed higher percentages in the following
141 seven categories: e-mail newsletter updates (31% for incumbents vs. 27% for challengers), polls/surveys (7% vs. 6%), search engines (9% vs. 3%), campaign merchandise (2% vs. 0%), online contributions (80% vs. 79%), feedback forms
(11% vs. 9%), and volunteer information (80% vs. 74%). Challenging candidates featured more audio files (7% for challengers vs. 0% for incumbents), bulletin board/chat rooms (2% vs. 0%), counters (7% vs. 4%), e-mail friends/family updates (13% vs. 5%), and video files (6% vs. 5%). Only the difference in the percentages of audio files was statistically significant (p<.05).
Technological Content by Party
As was the case with the other two variables examined in this chapter, results of the content analysis revealed that Republicans were slightly more likely to include technological features on their sites than Democrats. Republican candidates included more counters (7% for Republicans vs. 3% for Democrats), e-mail friends/family features (11% vs. 10%), e-mail newsletters (31% vs. 24%), polls/surveys (7% vs. 6%), campaign merchandise (1% vs. 0%), and feedback forms (11% vs. 8%). Conversely, Democratic candidates used more audio files
(6% for Democrats vs. 2% for Republicans), bulletin board/chat rooms (1% vs.
0%), search engines (6% vs. 5%), and video files (6% vs. 5%).
142 Similarly, Republican legislators featured more audio files (21% for
Republicans vs. 17% for Democrats), e-mail newsletters (27% vs. 11%), polls/surveys (10% vs. 9%), search engines (25% vs. 22%), video files (5% vs.
4%), campaign merchandise (1% vs. 0%), and feedback forms (11% vs. 8%).
Only the percentage of e-mail newsletters was statistically significant (p<.05).
Finally, Democratic legislators offered more bulletin board/chat rooms (1% for
Democrats vs. 0% for Republicans) and counters (29% vs. 21%) than did their
Republican colleagues.
143
Table 5.3
Percentages for Technological Content Repub Dem Incumb Chal Repub Dem Cand Legis Cand Cand Cand Cand Legis Legis Audio files (%) 4 3 2 6 0* 7* 21 17 Bulletin board/chat room 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 Counter 6** 25** 7 3 4 7 21 29 E-mail friends/family 10** 0** 11 10 5 13 0 0 E-mail newsletter 28 18 31 24 31 27 27* 11* Polls and surveys 7 9 7 6 7 6 10 9 Search engine 6** 21** 5 6 9 3 25 22 Video files 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 4 Campaign merchandise 1 n/a 1 0 2 0 n/a n/a Contribute 79 n/a 77 82 80 79 n/a n/a Feedback form 10 n/a 11 8 11 9 n/a n/a Volunteer info 77 n/a 75 79 80 74 n/a n/a
Note: Significance tests are two-tailed. *p<.05 **p<.01
STANDOUT SITES
Congressional candidates face the monumental task of not only determining the interests of district residents, but of keeping them informed of, and engaged in, activities and developments within the campaign. While the results of this study indicate that many campaign Web sites have not lived up to this challenge, House candidates Richard Burr (R-NC), Ander Crenshaw (R-FL),
144 and Stephanie Sanchez (D-CT) have used information, creativity, and technology respectively to overcome these obstacles and better communicate with potential voters and other online audiences. Following, each campaign site is described in relation to its particular strength.
Information Content on the Site of Richard Burr
The campaign site of Richard Burr, Republican Congressman from North
Carolina, is clearly focused on informing the residents of the fifth district, the candidate's key audience. Using a variety of features, the site provides visitors with plenty of information without feeling cluttered or unorganized. For example, one section, entitled "Hot Issues," outlines Burr's stances on a number of pressing political topics including bio-terrorism, health care, and taxes. Another section,
"Richard's Bills," lists the bills that Rep. Burr has sponsored and co-sponsored over the years, along with detailed explanations of each piece of legislation.
Several press releases are offered on the homepage and throughout the site for the benefit of journalists, and Burr provides a thorough biography that describes his career and family life. Finally, Burr offers detailed contact information for both his North Carolina and Washington offices, as well as a personal e-mail address.
In short, Burr's site is not only attractive and easy to navigate; it is extremely
145 informative, obviously recognizing the needs of constituents as well as members of the media.
Illustration 5.6: Homepage of incumbent candidate Richard Burr (R-NC).
146 Creative Content on the Site of Ander Crenshaw
The official campaign site of Ander Crenshaw, incumbent Republican candidate from Florida's fourth district, is simple, colorful, and inviting. Rather than the red, white, and blue that many candidates currently seem to favor,
Crenshaw uses a warm color scheme and an attractive, casual photograph of himself dressed in jeans and a denim shirt. The photograph, most likely taken by a professional, makes Crenshaw look down-to-earth, which is particularly important for an incumbent; it also demonstrates the candidate's desire to avoid the typical suit-and-tie-in-front-of-the-American-flag headshot. Additionally, Crenshaw uses subtle flashing and moving star graphics on his homepage, thanking visitors for their support while simultaneously conveying a timely message of patriotism.
Finally, while Crenshaw's site is creative in its presentation, it is also informative and easy to navigate, indicating that the candidate didn't necessarily choose style over substance.
147
Illustration 5.7: Homepage of incumbent candidate Ander Crenshaw (R-FL).
148 Technological Content on the Site of Stephanie Sanchez
From the first glance, it's clear that the Web site of Stephanie Sanchez,
Democratic congressional candidate from Connecticut's fourth district, was designed with technology in mind. While Sanchez supplies most of the necessary basic political information, the site is also filled with innovations, such as a pop- up poll asking which issue Fairfield County residents feel is most important, a flashing credit card section indicating the site's ability to take online donations, and a section where visitors can sign up to volunteer.
The Sanchez site is also one of only eight campaign sites in the sample that provided video files. In fact, Sanchez offers a complete multimedia section with several video news clips that feature the candidate talking with reporters on a variety of issues from education to the economy. Sanchez also provides a 30- second campaign spot in which she speaks out against Republicans in Congress.
While, not unimportantly, the candidate neglects to offer some key technological features such as an e-mail update option for mobilizing supporters and a search engine to assist visitors with navigation, the Sanchez for Congress site is, nonetheless, relatively extensive in its use of technology.
149
Illustration 5.8: Homepage of challenging candidate Stephanie Sanchez (D-CT).
DISCUSSION
Despite the glowing comments of many of the observers (see Jalonick
2000; Mark 2002) quoted in the first chapter of this dissertation, the findings from the content analysis largely coincide with the opinions of the Web designers in
Chapter Four, who suggested that congressional campaign sites are highly under- utilized at this point in time. More specifically, the data show that House campaign sites are less informative, less creative, and only slightly more technologically innovative than the official government sites of House members. 150 There is also evidence that the sites of incumbents are more effective than those of challengers, as are the sites of Republicans when compared to their Democratic colleagues. The remainder of this chapter offers several possible explanations for these findings.
First, as was mentioned in earlier chapters, it has historically taken several years after the introduction of a new medium for that medium to be accepted by the public. Politicians are, of course, a part of this public, and it seems to reason that perhaps candidates are waiting to learn more about what the Internet and the Web can do for politics. As Klotz (1997, p. 482) summarizes, "As with the adoption of any new technology, Internet use by political candidates will undergo some early rough spots." Whatever the case, as Browning (1997) observes, it seems that the candidates who come to understand and accept this new technology will be the ones who benefit from it the most.
A second reason for the hesitancy on the part of candidates to use the Web to its fullest potential may be simply that politicians are politicians; in today's poll-driven society, the words and actions of candidates are carefully and painstakingly crafted whether the forum is a debate, a television ad, a speech, or -- apparently -- a Web site. Former president Bill Clinton is perhaps best known for embodying this quality. As one newspaper editor wrote (Gerard 1998, ¶ 1),
"Whatever you say about President Bill Clinton, you have to admire his ability to test the political winds. He is a veritable political anemometer. He is the ultimate
151 politician." Moreover, candidates may be approaching the Web with caution because it is a medium in which posted information is, in a sense, forever. Even if online information is altered by a candidate, there is still the possibility that the data could be saved on a journalist's or, worse, an opponent's hard drive. Since candidates, as was previously mentioned, prefer having complete control over their messages, it is likely that many remain conservative in posting site content for fear that it might cause irreparable harm at a later date. As one 1999 gubernatorial candidate states, "Anything I put on the Web can be used against me," (Ireland and Nash 2002, p. 50). Adds Deutsch (as cited in Fineman 1995, p. 32):
Nobody can hide. Most of the Internet conversations and information are
available to anyone. The enemy can usually read over your shoulder and
butt in. You have to be very aware that the whole world can listen in to
what you are saying.
Finally, as several of the Web designers in the previous chapter noted, campaign sites may be lacking at this time because candidates have yet to fully integrate them into their campaigns. Currently, Web sites appear to be a means for candidates to briefly introduce themselves in hopes of soliciting funds and
152 recruiting volunteers, rather than a concentrated effort to communicate with citizens. As one interviewee observed, "A lot of candidates initially approach the campaign site as solely a fundraising vehicle38."
Incumbents and Challengers
In reference to incumbents and challengers, perhaps the fact that incumbent sites generally contained more information, higher levels of creativity, and more technological innovations than those of challengers indicates that the incumbent advantage is as much at play on the Web as it is in the offline world of politics. As Banks and Kiewiet (1989, p. 997) observe, "Over the past two decades, over 93 percent of incumbent members of Congress who seek re-election have been successful. This high success rate is in large measure due to the resources that incumbents possess." The numbers for the 2002 mid-term election accurately reflect this statement; a full 98 percent of House incumbents were re-elected, as were 85 percent of incumbent Senators. In terms of dollars, the incumbent advantage for Representatives and Senators in the 2002 race was approximately $272 million and $50.5 million, respectively (Federal Election
Commission 2002) (see Appendix for a complete expenditures table).
38 I4. 153 Incumbents also tend to be better known among voters, and are more experienced at campaigning than most challengers (Jacobson 1990). In fact, a substantial body of research suggests that incumbents typically do not face a strong challenger of the opposing party in the general election (Huckshorn and
Spencer 1971; Jacobson 1980; Leuthold 1968; Mann and Wolfinger 1980). As
Banks and Kiewet (1989, p. 997) maintain, "The low probability of defeating incumbent members of Congress deters potentially strong rivals from challenging them. Yet almost all incumbents are challenged, usually by opponents who lack previous experience in office and run under-financed, ineffectual campaigns."
Republicans and Democrats
As for Republicans and Democrats, history reveals that as a group,
Republicans have been better educated and have had more financial resources to draw upon than their colleagues from across the aisle (see Theimer 2002). In a recent example, figures from the Federal Election Commission (2002) specify that
Republican House and Senate candidates spent a collective $15 million more than
Democratic candidates in the 2002 election. These realities may provide at least some indication as to why the sites of the Republicans in this sample were generally more informative, more creative, and more technologically advanced than those of Democrats. Specifically, it seems to reason that with more money at
154 their disposal, Republican candidates can afford to hire the best in political Web design firms, thus ensuring that careful attention will be paid to design, layout, content, and other factors that contribute to a well-developed campaign site.
SUMMARY
The findings from this chapter concerning information, creativity, and technology on campaign sites are consistent with the lukewarm sentiments posed by the Web designers in Chapter Four. They also concur with the results of a related study conducted by Williams, Aylesworth, and Chapman (Bentley College
2002) who, after examining the campaign sites of 171 Senate candidates, concluded that both the content and appearance of the sites left much room for improvement. States Schmitt (1997, p. 8), who noted a similar pattern in his examination of House and Senate sites, "...while some of those congressional offices that have the most cyber-literate constituents have the most accessible sites, others put up offerings that are disappointingly pedestrian or uninformative." Finally, Cornfield, Safdar, and Seiger (1998, p. 26) observe of
House campaign sites, "Well, there is some creativity out there on the virtual trail.
Some of you political Web masters are taking our collective breath away.
Unfortunately, there is also a lot of conformity, hyper-caution, and dullness." The
155 message that Schmitt, Cornfield, the interviewees, and other like-minded individuals are sending is clear: if candidates want visitors to view their sites with the same interest that is typically paid to more traditional ads, campaign Web sites must become a top priority.
Nonetheless, most believe it is only a matter of time before Web sites will be fully integrated into political campaigns and, therefore, fully functional. While campaign sites may never take the place of television and radio ads, many advertising creatives, academics, journalists, and citizens agree that in the near future, Web sites could be as much a part of political campaigns as old-fashioned yard signs and bumper stickers.
156 Chapter 6: Partisanship, Opposition, and Accessibility on Congressional Web Sites
If you start spewing on your Web site Republican this, Republican that...It's just not done. It's not that legislators are necessarily trying to hide it. It's just not their goal. They are there to serve their constituents. -- (Political Web Design
Consultant D. Almacy, telephone interview, August 9, 2002).
There's not much mudslinging on the Internet as of yet, and that's a good thing.
-- (Political Web Design Consultant J. Karush, telephone interview,
August 6, 2002).
I would avoid saying negative things about the other candidate on an official campaign site because it doesn't seem to work that well on the Web. --
(Political Web Design Consultant S. Weaver, telephone interview,
August 5, 2002).
The preceding chapter indicated that overall, the Web sites of congressional candidates are somewhat lacking in terms of information, creativity, and technology. These findings are in agreement with the comments
157 of the Web designers in Chapter Four, and with other observers in politics and academics as well. Moreover, it was found that the sites of incumbents and
Republicans were slightly better-developed than those of challengers and
Democrats, respectively.
While the discrepancies in the above findings were often minimal, there were three very noticeable differences among the sites of candidates and legislators. Those differences, which involve partisan content, political opposition, and accessibility, are the focus of Chapter 6. Although the findings presented in this chapter may seem surprising at first glance, it will be shown that cultural norms and democratic theory actually support these assertions (see Fenno
1977).
First, the author examines the role and meaning of partisanship as it relates to the U.S. electoral system and offers observations about the discrepancies in partisan cues found on the campaign and legislative Web sites in the content analysis. Subsequently, the same treatment will be given to the issues of online political opposition and accessibility. The chapter ends with a summary and discussion of the results.
158 PARTISANSHIP IN AMERICA AND ON THE WEB
The first area in which there were clear differences between the sites of candidates and legislators was that of partisan content. As Ansolabehere and
Iyengar (1995, pp. 73-74) observe, "Party allegiances reflect the degree to which the parties and the candidates who run under their banners represent, and have represented, the voters' interests. They are shorthand for what people want and expect from government and what the parties, as governing organizations, can claim credit for or should receive blame for." The partisan preferences of most
U.S. citizens fall into three groups: Democrat, Republican, and Independent, with roughly two-thirds of Americans labeling themselves as either Democrats or Republicans.
While partisanship is part and parcel of everyday politics, there is arguably no arena in which it is more prominent than political campaigns. During elections, parties play a major role in such tasks as providing information, enlisting candidates, and marshalling voters. Not surprisingly, much research from the fields of advertising, communication studies, and political science has focused on the effects of campaign advertising on partisanship. A number of studies have indicated that campaign ads can reinforce the beliefs of loyal party members, and can even convert voters from opposing parties (see Ansolabehere and Iyengar
1995). Other related areas of study include: the effects of partisanship on
159 legislative decision-making (Scully and Patterson 2001), the impact of individual partisanship on presidential performance evaluations (Bond and Fleisher 2001), the association between partisanship and support of ballot measures (Berman and Yawn 2001), and the relationship of partisanship with respect to voting preference and behavior (Aldrich 1995; Campbell et al. 1960; Delli Carpini and
Keeter 1993).
Partisanship is such an important part of campaigns, in fact, that most political scientists who study campaigns agree that nonpartisan elections in upper ballot races would actually be harmful to citizens, and to democracy. As Sherrill notes (1998, p. 15):
Absent political parties and collective responsibility, the voters lose their ability to distinguish the officials whose behavior they, on balance, supported from those they thought should be replaced...In general, our experience teaches us that nonpartisan elections serve to frustrate democracy...The alternative to party politics is the politics of everyone for him- or herself.
PARTISAN CONTENT ON CAMPAIGN AND LEGISLATIVE WEB SITES
While political candidates operate as active partisans, sitting legislators are required to serve all of the individuals in a district -- not just those of a certain political stripe. In addition to serving constituents from various political factions,
160 legislators and their staffs must handle numerous citizen concerns (such as handling flag requests and supplying constituents with copies of legislation) that have nothing to do with political party.
For these reasons, the fourth hypothesis predicted that partisan content would be very prominent on the Web sites of congressional candidates, and less obvious on those of sitting U.S. House members. It was also assumed that online partisan cues would be similar to those found in traditional political advertisements. As was explained in the Methodology, partisan cues fell into three categories: (1) words, such as "Democrat", "Republican", "liberal" and
"conservative," (2) graphics, such as the GOP elephant and Democratic donkey; and (3) photographs of prominent politicians like Al Gore and George W. Bush.
Results of the content analysis supported the fourth hypothesis. As the data in Table 6.1 show, there were statistically significant differences (p<.01) between candidates and legislators in terms of online partisan content. Significant differences for this variable were also found between incumbents and challengers, as well as Republican and Democratic candidates.
Specifically, while fifty-seven percent of candidates placed partisan cues on their Web sites, only seventeen percent of House members did the same. In addition to the discrepancy in percentages, partisan cues on the campaign pages were typically very easy to see, while legislative partisanship was more subtle. Of
161 the three markers examined, partisan texts were most popular, followed by graphics, then photographs.
These findings are consistent with those of Jarvis (1996), who discovered in an earlier study of House legislative sites that only twenty-two percent of sitting congresspersons used partisan texts or symbols on their homepages. The data also support the notion that the partisan cues found on the Web are similar to those found in more traditional political advertisements.
Since partisanship is at the heart of most political campaigns, the fact that the Web sites of congressional candidates were much more partisan than those of legislators is not surprising. Again, the reality that legislators must serve
Republicans, Democrats, and others in their districts is likely to have played a role in the findings. It is also probable that the terrorist attacks of September 11, which served as a catalyst for Republicans and Democrats to set aside their differences and present a united front, contributed to the findings.
Partisan Content by Incumbency
When the partisanship variable was examined using an incumbency measure, there were again significant differences (p<.01) between the campaign and legislative samples. While approximately two-thirds (67%) of challenging candidates displayed partisan content, less than half (40%) of incumbent
162 candidates did the same. The reason challenging candidates featured more partisanship likely has to do with the fact that incumbent candidates, as Ehrenhalt
(1992, p. 11) notes, "are far more likely to be familiar." As such, it is assumed that most constituents already know which political party incumbent candidates are affiliated with. Challengers, on the other hand, are often unrecognized; thus, it seems reasonable that this group would be more apt to let potential online voters know which party they represent.
Partisan Content by Party
As with the variables of information, creativity, and technology examined in Chapter Five, when partisan content was broken down by party, it was found that Republicans displayed more online partisanship in both the candidate and legislative groups. A hefty sixty-five percent of Republican candidates used partisan cues on their homepages, as opposed to forty-five percent of Democratic candidates, a figure that was statistically significant (p<.05). Additionally, eighteen percent of Republican legislators and fourteen percent of Democratic legislators displayed partisan content on their homepages. The fact that so many in the GOP displayed online partisanship may be related to a sense of political pride; at the time these sites were saved, the Republicans enjoyed control of the
House of Representatives and control of the White House.
163 Notably, although no bipartisanship was found on the sites of Republican candidates, a small number of Democratic candidates (6%) actually displayed bipartisanship on their campaign sites. For instance, some Democratic candidates featured such amicable statements as, "I stand firmly behind the resolve of the
President" and "I'm a bridge-builder who can reach across party lines." Again, this likely points to the nature of the political climate after September 11, as well as
President George W. Bush's consistently high approval ratings. In the following section, examples of obvious partisanship as featured on the sites of both a
Republican and Democratic House candidate are offered as a means of illustration.
Table 6.1
Percentages for Partisan Content Repub Dem Incumb Chal Repub Dem Cand Legis Cand Cand Cand Cand Legis Legis Partisan Content (%) 57** 17** 65* 45* 40** 67** 18 14 (text, graphics, or photos)
Note: Significance tests are two-tailed. *p<.05 **p<.01
164 Partisan Content on the Sites of Charles Sanders and Mike Rogers
Charles Sanders
While several sites in the campaign sample displayed two of the three types of partisan content measured in this study, only one featured all three -- that of former Ohio mayor and Democratic challenger Charles Sanders. The first hint as to Sanders' party is a prominent photograph of the candidate smiling warmly as he shakes the hand of Bill Clinton. At the bottom of the page, a hyper-linked graphic with the words "The Ohio Democratic Party" and another to "Democrats
Online" also serve as obvious partisan cues. In addition to the more noticeable instances of partisanship, Sanders offers a subtle Democratic reference in his welcome message, stating, "Our current Congressman has forgotten about the working people of this district. With your help, Sanders can and will win this election -- and then the people of the Second District will have a Congressman who really understands their needs and concerns." While this reference was not counted as partisanship in the content analysis because it failed to meet the specific criteria, it did serve as an understated reference to a key
Democratic constituency.
165
Ohio Democratic Party
Illustration 6.1: Homepage of challenging candidate Charles Sanders (D-OH).
Here, Sanders attempts to campaign by sending obvious online partisan cues rather than shying away from them. His site is notable because this is an option selected by just over half (57%) of the candidates in the sample and only seventeen percent of the legislators. Sanders' choice is especially intriguing in
166 2002, a time when Republican candidates were more likely to advertise such cues than Democrats.
Mike Rogers
While only one type of partisanship is found on the homepage of Alabama
Republican challenger Mike Rogers, it is interesting to note how this candidate uses one of the most recognizable Republican symbols. The fact that no less than eight whole or partial GOP elephants are visible on Rogers' homepage leaves no doubt in the visitor's mind as to which political party Rogers belongs. While many politicians avoided this type of approach, possibly in an effort to gain the attention of the increasingly important -- and growing -- group of undecided voters, Rogers boldly declares where his loyalties rest.
167
Illustration 6.2: Homepage of challenging candidate Mike Rogers (R-AL).
The fact that Rogers displays the Republican elephant so prominently shows that he is proud of his party and the issues on which it stands, and probably feels comfortable that the voters of Alabama feel this way as well. Moreover, the candidate backs his homepage style with plenty of relevant information; for instance, the scrolling link at the bottom of the homepage entitled "Click Here To
168 Read Where Mike Rogers Really Stands on the Issues," guides visitors to a specific section where they can read more about Rogers' Republican ideals.
POLITICAL OPPOSITION IN AMERICA AND ON THE WEB
Like partisanship, political opposition, the second notable area of discrepancy found between campaign and legislative sites, is a dominant theme in politics. As was explained in the Methodology, political opposition is characterized as detected anger or resentment toward a rival political party or a specific political candidate. The types of conflicts and quarrels that represent political opposition have, in fact, inhabited the political world during elections, and in non-election years, throughout history. For example, an 1865 Harper's
Weekly article provides a sampling of the derogatory names Abraham Lincoln was called during his presidency (Jamieson 1992, p. 43):
Filthy Story-Teller, Despot, Liar, Thief, Braggart, Buffoon, Usurper, Monster, Ignoramus Abe, Old Scoundrel, Perjurer, Robber, Swindler, Tyrant, Fiend, Butcher, Land-Pirate, and Long, Lean, Lank, Lantern- Jawed, High-Cheekboned, Spavined, Rail-Splitting Stallion.
Most voters do not have an encyclopedic knowledge of the history of negativity in politics, and it is not uncommon for citizens to believe that the 169 "present" (i.e. 2002) marks an unusually negative period in politics. The visibility and vividness of contemporary attack advertising (Jamieson 1992) offers support for this lay understanding.
"Negative" or "attack" campaign advertisements are spots that refer directly to an opposing candidate, the issues for which the opposing candidate stands, or the party of the opposing candidate (Surlin and Gordon 1977). A great deal can be found in the literature on the empirical effects of negative political advertising. For instance, subjects have rated candidates as less qualified, less honest, less serious, less sincere, less successful, and less fiscally responsible after viewing negative political ads about those candidates (Kaid and Boydston 1987).
Scholars have also found that negative ads leave greater impressions than positive or neutral ads (Kellerman 1989), and that negative information is weighted more heavily than positive information in political perception and behavior (Lau 1982,
1985). As Ansolabehere and Iyengar (1995, p. 147) summarize:
Against the trickle of ads urging people to vote rushes a flood of negative campaign commercials that erode the participatory ethos. Candidate after candidate has turned to negative advertising, and once the gates of negative campaigning are opened, they are difficult to close. The best way to answer an attack is with another attack.
170 POLITICAL OPPOSITION ON CAMPAIGN AND LEGISLATIVE WEB SITES
Since the Web sites of candidates are an extension of political campaigns, it is reasonable to assume that the competitive campaign practices that define negative advertisements might also be found on the sites of those running for
Congress. One of the earliest uses of the Web to attack a challenger occurred in
Virginia in 1998, when city council candidate A.M. "Don" Weeks attacked incumbent Louisa M. Strayhorn on his campaign site with the following accusation (as cited in Johnson 1999):
Is Councilwoman Louisa Strayhorn doing her share of the work? No.
Never has there been a more obvious lack of leadership on city council
from the Kempsville District.
In contrast, because legislative sites are governed by House rules, and since members of Congress serve constituents from various political parties, it is reasonable to assume that these sites would be less confrontational. As such, the fifth and final hypothesis theorized that candidates would make more references to political opposition on their campaign sites than would legislators on their official government sites. This hypothesis was supported by the data; a significantly higher percentage of candidates (10% of candidates vs. 3% of legislators; p<.05) included political opposition, either in the form of attack ads,
171 press releases, or other texts introducing or responding to opposition. For both groups, the most popular form of political opposition was press releases introducing opposition (see Table 6.2).
Although it was anticipated that candidates would display more political opposition than legislators due to the frequently negative nature of political campaigns, the percentages for each group were lower than expected. The fact that minimal political opposition was found on the Web sites in the sample agrees with the observation of Johnson (1999, p. 713), who predicted:
This form of communication, by its very nature, will not become a vehicle for screaming, red-hot attacks. Much will depend on what is considered acceptable over the Internet. Right now, we simply do not know what the Internet will tolerate. Campaigns are gingerly testing citizen tolerance...
Political Opposition by Incumbency
When political opposition was measured by incumbency, there were discrepancies among incumbent candidates and challenging candidates although, again, the percentages for both groups were low and the differences were not statistically significant. While thirteen percent of challenging candidates displayed at least one form of political opposition, only four percent of incumbent candidates did the same.
172 The fact that so few challenging candidates featured political opposition is surprising when one considers the heavy role that negative advertising plays in most modern-day political campaigns. Perhaps this is a signal that, as several of the designers in Chapter Four noted, candidates are not yet incorporating Web sites into their overall campaign strategies. On the other hand, the lack of opposition on the sites of incumbents seems to indicate a hesitancy on the part of incumbents to take their challengers seriously. As Hart (2000) has observed, incumbent candidates rarely refer to challengers in campaign discourse unless, of course, the challenger is ahead in the race. It has been preferable, Hart states, for incumbents to deny challengers the legitimacy of a mention in speeches and advertisements.
Political Opposition by Party
When the party measure was introduced, results indicated that Democratic candidates (11%) featured slightly more political opposition than Republican candidates (8%). On the other hand, Republican legislators (2%, n=2) featured more political opposition than Democratic legislators (1%, n=1). Though the differences were not statistically significant, this finding becomes interesting when coupled with the results on partisan content. Perhaps the fact that
Republicans displayed more partisanship on their Web sites while Democrats
173 featured more political opposition indicates that displaying partisan cues (e.g. featuring the GOP elephant numerous times on a homepage) is a symbol of the political pride of the party who holds the presidency, while statements of political opposition are a more fitting choice for the party that is not currently in power and desires to speak out against the leadership. That is, in 2002, Democrats did not campaign "against Republicans" as much as "against individuals, policies, and ideas" on these sites. Following, the sites of a Republican challenger and a
Democratic incumbent are discussed in terms of political opposition.
Table 6.2
Percentages for Political Opposition Repub Dem Incumb Chal Repub Dem Cand Legis Cand Cand Cand Cand Legis Legis Political Opposition (%) 10* 3* 8 11 4 13 1 2 (press releases or other texts)
Note: Significance tests are two-tailed. *p<.05
174 Political Opposition on the Sites of Raymond Wardingley and George Miller
Raymond Wardingley
The campaign site of Illinois Republican challenger Raymond Wardingley featured some of the most direct political opposition of any site in the sample. At the top of the homepage, Wardingley cautions online viewers, "This November,
Don't Rush to Judgement!" Hopefully looking past the fact that the word
"judgment" is misspelled, the visitor quickly comes to realize that this warning is a play on the name of Wardingley's opponent, Democratic incumbent Bobby
Rush. Wardingley further attacks Rush with a yellow banner at the bottom of his homepage that scrolls the following message: "Bobby Rush continues to
IGNORE constituents as Ray Wardingley more than TRIPLES his vote total from the 2000 primary to the 2002 primary." The challenger also mentions his opponent in the site's greeting e.g. "I'm giving Bobby Rush notice. I'm not going away," and in a link entitled, "When will we hear from Ray's Opponent?"
175 In addition to the more obvious signs of political opposition found on
Wardingley's homepage, the candidate takes a subtle shot at Rush in his welcome message, stating:
As we explore a new millennium and a larger constituency, we hope to again make history by restoring the mantle of Lincoln to the Republican Party and finally electing a independent conservative that people of all backgrounds can feel proud to represent them. After a quarter century of one party rule and a decade of a partisan Congressman who ignores key areas of our dazzling and fascinating metropolis, we know it's time for a change in the 1st district.
While the homepage was truncated due to its substantial length, the top three- quarters appear in Illustration 6.3.
176
Illustration 6.3: Homepage of challenging candidate Raymond Wardingley (R-IL).
Wardingley's site is reflective of the partisan bickering that has taken place between political candidates throughout history, and particularly of those who are willing to make a point rather than win a race (Jamieson 1984). In fact, the strong opposing barbs that Wardingley aims at Rush echo sentiments that can be found in almost any modern or historical campaign advertisement, speech, or debate. As such, it was expected, but not found, that many more of the campaign sites in the
177 sample would display political opposition of this fashion. It appears, up to the year 2002 at least, that candidates are engaging in positive campaigns online, leaving the attacks to more traditional campaign media outlets.
George Miller
Rep. George Miller, a California Democrat, is one of only three legislators in the study who displayed political opposition on an official government site.
Prominently indicating his party at the top of the homepage, Miller takes aims at
George W. Bush and his administration, either directly or indirectly, a total of eight times. Statements such as "Miller Joins Lawsuit Against President Bush
Over Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty Withdrawal" and " Representative Miller
Critical of Slow Labor Department Investigation on Enron" make it clear that this congressman vehemently opposes the Republican president and his cabinet.
178
Illustration 6.4: Homepage of incumbent candidate George Miller (D-CA).
In addition to the opposition text on Miller's homepage, at the bottom of the site
(also truncated in the example due to its length), the congressman provides a logo with the headline "Slamming Shut the Doors to College," which leads visitors to a forty-four page report criticizing the Bush Administration's handling of higher education funds. Interestingly, while two other legislative sites in the sample featured a minimal amount of political opposition, Miller's site is the only one that seems to truly represent the partisan sparring that occurs daily on Capitol Hill and
179 in the press. Perhaps this reflects the fact that Miller, a San Francisco Bay area native, has represented California's seventh district since 1975 and was re-elected with seventy-one percent of the vote in 2002. For this reason, Miller may feel relatively safe in his congressional seat and, therefore, more comfortable displaying partisan cues.
Illustration 6.5: Link on homepage of incumbent candidate George Miller (D-CA).
180 ACCESSIBILITY ON THE WEB
While not explored in the study's hypotheses, the issue of online accessibility stood out as an additional area in which the sites of House candidates differed markedly from those of sitting legislators. Certainly, the Internet and the
World Wide Web bring with them great potential to change political life and culture because of the access allowed to users; while traditional outlets like radio and television are easily available across the country, these mediums do not provide citizens the interactive opportunities found online.
The Internet, however, can bring citizens and politicians together or it can serve to alienate them from one another depending upon how it is used. As
Stromer-Galley (2000) observes, the Internet offers two basic types of interaction: computer-mediated human interaction and media-interaction; the factor that distinguishes these forms of interaction is who or what provides the feedback.
Computer-mediated human-interaction is "prolonged interaction between two or more people through the channel of a computer network," (Stromer-Galley 2000, p. 117). This sort of interaction, to borrow a phrase from Gwilliam (1999, p. 32), allows politicians to relate to citizens as "partners instead of targets." In contrast, during media-interaction, it is the medium itself that provides the feedback. For example, if a citizen sends a congressman an e-mail seeking his views on affirmative action and, in return, receives a personal e-mail back from the congressman, computer-mediated human interaction has taken place. On the other
181 hand, if the same citizen obtains this information by scrolling through the "Issues" section of a legislator's Web site, media-interaction has occurred.
Stromer-Galley (2000, p.112) found that although the Internet provides unique opportunities for human-interaction, most political candidates choose to put up "a façade of interaction with the campaign and the candidate through media-interaction." The researcher (2000, p. 130) adds that the preference for media-interaction likely has to do with the fact that engaging in human interaction
"would open up the possibility for burdensome exchange between candidates, campaign staffs and citizens, which could entail losing control over the communication environment and losing the ability to remain ambiguous in policy positions." Stromer-Galley's observation is interesting, as the issue of control continues to be a central theme of this project.
ACCESSIBILITY ON CAMPAIGN AND LEGISLATIVE WEB SITES
On the surface, it appeared that both groups in the study were easily accessible to constituents; the majority of candidates (93%) and legislators (97%) provided basic contact information such as physical addresses, telephone numbers, and fax numbers (see Table 6.3). However, as was briefly mentioned in
Chapter Five, noteworthy differences were found between candidates and legislators concerning their accessibility via e-mail. More specifically, while
182 almost all of the candidates in the sample offered direct e-mail addresses
(e.g. [email protected]), reaching a legislator proved to be a much more complicated task. Contrary to the above findings of Stromer-Galley (2000), the data from this study indicate that while legislators prefer media-interaction, candidates, as on the campaign trail, are much more willing to engage in human-interaction.
Accessibility by Incumbency and Party
When accessibility was examined in terms of incumbency, differences between incumbent candidates and challenging candidates were minimal, and none were statistically significant. A full ninety-five percent of incumbent candidates provided contact information, as did ninety-two percent of challenging candidates. When the party measure was introduced, results indicated that
Republican candidates (94%) provided slightly more contact information on their sites than Democratic candidates (92%). On the other hand, Democratic legislators (86%) appeared more accessible than Republican legislators (79%).
Following, examples from the sites of one incumbent, one challenger, and one legislator help illustrate the current state of political accessibility on the Web.
183
Table 6.3
Percentages for Accessibility Repub Dem Incumb Chal Repub Dem Cand Legis Cand Cand Cand Cand Legis Legis Accessibility (%) 93 97 94 92 95 92 79 86
Note: Significance tests are two-tailed. *p<.05
Accessibility of Candidates George Radanovich and Don Smart
George Radanovich
The campaign homepage of George Radanovich, a Republican incumbent from California, features a simple but effective "Communication" area. At the top of the section, Radanovich invites visitors to add themselves to his campaign's fax and/or e-mail list. The congressman also provides two different contact links, as well as a section featuring links to other areas of the site in which Radanovich lists his physical campaign address, phone number, and fax number. Additionally,
Radanovich offers his personal e-mail address, [email protected], and encourages site visitors to contact him, noting that the candidate and his campaign staff "Look forward to hearing from you!"
184
Illustration 6.6: Homepage of incumbent candidate George Radanovich (R-CA).
Don Smart
Don Smart, a Democratic challenger from Georgia, was another of the many candidates in the sample who emphasized accessibility on his site. Smart prominently displays phone and fax numbers for the campaign, the headquarters' physical address, and a direct e-mail address at the top of his homepage. Smart also encourages site visitors to contact him in his greeting message, stating, "If I
185 can help you in any way, please contact me directly at donsmartforcongress.com."
Smart's site, like that of Radanovich, sends a message that the candidate is not only able to participate in human-interaction with site visitors -- he actually looks forward to it.
Illustration 6.7: Homepage of challenging candidate Don Smart (D-GA).
186 Accessibility Through the "Write Your Representative" Service
As has already been mentioned, while a majority of candidates like
Radanovich and Smart made themselves easily accessible to constituents and other site visitors, legislators were much more difficult -- if not impossible -- for the average citizen to reach. In fact, in an effort to manage the mountains of e-mail that flow into the Capitol each day, all 436 members of the House currently use a tool called the "Write Your Representative Service." This system identifies a constituent's congressperson and provides contact information only after the constituent has provided their state and nine-digit zip code information, making it easy to filter out or ignore e-mail from outside a representative's home district.
The "Write Your Representative" homepage, displayed in Illustration 6.8, reflects the obvious difficulties a constituent faces in trying to contact a House member. First, the user will likely have to visit the site of the U.S. Postal Service to determine his/her four-digit zip code extension, at which point they must enter the state in which they reside, along with their address and five-digit zip code.
Once the zip code extension is obtained, the user must advance three clicks back to the "Write Your Representative" page, enter the full zip code, and click the
"Contact My Representative" button.
187
Illustration 6.8: The Write Your Representative Service as featured on the U.S. House of Representatives Web site.
In addition to the numerous steps the "Write Your Representative" service entails, a citizen wishing to contact a legislator via e-mail will likely have to re-enter their full name and physical address on the representative's homepage -- clearly a much more complex task than typing in the single e-mail address offered by many candidates. Complicating matters even further, most legislators state directly on their sites that they do not respond to e-mail from constituents outside of their
188 home districts. In fact, a recent Congressional Management Foundation survey found that eighty-seven percent of House offices screen out all non-constituent mail, even though it could be argued that a representative's work often affects the entire country (Jones and Ault 1999). Moreover, many legislators send an automated message informing constituents in their districts that their e-mails will be responded to only through postal mail. The following generic auto-reply response, received by the author from the office of Representative Ron Kind (D-
WI), is typical:
Thank you for contacting my office about an issue that I know concerns you. In order to better serve the residents of Wisconsin's Third Congressional District, I am only able to respond to emails submitted through my website. Please use the following link, http://www.house.gov/kind to submit your concern. Due to staff and resource limitations, I am only able to respond to residents of the Third Congressional District. Thank you once again for contacting me. Your comments are an integral part of the political process. Without them, I would not be able to make the decisions that affect our community and our nation.
Sincerely, Ron Kind, Member of Congress
Though the legislator is at least willing to respond to his constituents through e- mail rather than postal mail, this reply makes it clear that Kind will not address the concerns of non-constituents. Of course, with the excessive amount of e-mail that congressional offices receive each day, it is not difficult to understand why
189 non-constituent correspondence is largely ignored by Rep. Kind and others.
However, Peter Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union asserts that members of
Congress should not disregard mail of any type from non-constituents. States
Sepp (as cited in Jones and Ault 1999, ¶ 7), "Members of Congress are not only elected to represent the 400,000-500,000 people in their district, they're elected to represent the national interest. Maybe getting feedback from people outside their district will tell them that parochial issues sometimes have to take a back seat when federal tax dollars are involved." In any case, levels of accessibility continue to fall short of the high expectations described by the cyber-optimists in
Chapter Two. They also provide some evidence that legislators prefer to limit contact with those outside the Capitol.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this chapter was to outline the prominent differences between the congressional campaign and legislative Web sites examined for this dissertation. In agreement with the fourth and fifth hypotheses, the content analysis indicated that the sites of candidates running for open seats in the U.S.
House offer more partisan content and more political opposition than the official government sites of legislators. The data also suggested that online candidates are
190 much more accessible than online legislators. While possible reasons for these differences were discussed throughout the chapter, a summary is provided in the subsequent section.
Reasons for Differences in Partisan Content and Political Opposition
First, since campaigns are the place where partisanship and political differences most often come into play, it was anticipated that the sites of candidates would contain more partisan content and more political opposition than those of legislators. In fact, many observers believe that politics is more negative than ever (see Bryant in Thurber and Nelson 1995), although there is much debate as to whether partisan quarrelling and opposition actually harm or help citizens. After all, negative politics and blatant partisanship -- despised by most -- are an essential part of our electoral system. As Bryant (p. 95) notes:
The simple fact is that voters ought to know the good and bad points of the candidates who seek their support, and the logical source of information about the bad points of a candidate is that candidate's opponent...It is difficult to imagine how a candidate could present a meaningful and understandable issue-based platform without contrasting the stands taken thereon with those taken by his or her opponent. As such, it stands to reason that the partisan politics found on over half of the campaign Web sites in this study -- and in all other campaign mediums -- will continue for at least the foreseeable future, largely to the benefit of citizens.
191 Secondly, as was indicated in Chapter Five, it is possible that campaign sites feature more partisanship and more political opposition than legislative sites because while there are restrictions on the types of content that can be posted by incumbents as set forth by the House Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, there are no known rules governing the campaign sites of candidates who do not currently hold a House seat. Specifically, there are two major rules that govern legislative sites. The Committee (U.S. House of Representatives 2002, p. 216) states that official congressional sites "may not include personal, political, or campaign information," and "may not be directly linked or refer to Web sites created or operated by a campaign or any campaign-related entity including political parties and campaign committees." Further, legislative sites "may not include a link to the Member’s House Web site," and "may not be advertised on his or her campaign Web site or in materials issued by the campaign." Though these rules are somewhat vague and do not appear to directly interfere with the use of party reference or political opposition, the end result may be a more conservative approach on the part of representatives.
Finally, legislators who already sit comfortably in office are primarily interested in serving their districts and getting re-elected. Those districts, as has already been mentioned, are made up of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and even fringe party members. The appearance of too much partisanship or opposition might result in representatives' isolating or angering citizens in their
192 districts who are undecided, or who belong to political groups different from their own. It might also prompt attention that would threaten the incumbent advantage.
Reasons for Differences in Accessibility
In addition to the differences regarding partisanship and political opposition, it was found that online candidates are much more accessible than legislators. In fact, numerous time-consuming steps are required for constituents to contact their representatives online, and it is almost impossible for non- constituents to reach legislators by e-mail. Though many observers insist that politicians must recognize that the potential of the Internet lies in its human- interactive capabilities (see Stromer-Galley 2000), the results of this study showed that only candidates are currently taking note. As was indicated in
Chapter Five, the fact that legislators are relatively difficult to access may reflect the reality that legislators prefer to conduct their business out of the public eye.
On the other hand, candidates -- and especially challengers -- seem to realize that in order to win, they must remain in contact with the voting public.
A related reason that candidates were found to be much more accessible than legislators may be due to the fact that challenging candidates are in a somewhat uncomfortable position; as has already been discussed, in order to be elected to office, common sense dictates that candidates must try harder to stay in
193 touch with voters than those who already reap the benefits of the incumbent advantage. As Ehrenhalt (1992, p. 15) once said of aspiring congresspersons,
"Candidates win these offices by selling themselves to the voters...one at a time, day after day." Thus, it is logical that candidates would make a concerted effort to present themselves to as many citizens as possible during election season.
In any case, it seems the only way legislators will become more accessible to citizens is if they are willing to hire the additional staff and resources necessary to handle their growing e-mail correspondence. Of course, until the Web is accepted by politicians as a legitimate means of communication, and until citizens are willing to demand more accessibility, this issue is likely to be overlooked. In the meantime, perhaps both candidates and legislators would do well to heed the advice of Brack (2001, ¶ 3):
Today's political Internet is like a child. You've got to feed it if it is to grow. Even though we're not sure what it will mature into, the 70+ percent of Americans online are becoming more comfortable with the Internet. Effective campaigns of the future will take advantage of the medium to encourage two-way participation, not just one-way data outflow from candidates and parties.
194 Chapter 7: Summary and Discussion
Almost everyone running for Congress this year has turned the World Wide Web into a campaign worker. The Web serves as a collection plate, a news outlet and a billboard for position papers. It helps recruit campaign volunteers and generate crowds at campaign appearances. It works as a photo album for displaying flattering snapshots and video clips from the campaign trail...The Web has stepped up as a force in national politics and cannot be ignored. -- Matthews, W. (2000, ¶ 2). Federal Computer Week.
As the new year begins, the candidates for President are unpacking their long underwear for the quadrennial midwinter showdowns in Iowa and New Hampshire. But something's different in the 2000 campaign. The Presidential race is being fought not only in the cafes on Main Street but also in cyberspace. -- Dunham, R.S. (2000, ¶ 1). Business Week Web site.
Technological Determinists expect the Internet to remake politics in its own image...They expect to see candidates engaging in direct, unfiltered, two-way communications with citizens. They predict that entrenched incumbents will soon face formidable challenges from novices, outsiders, and insurgents armed only with listservs and Web pages. They imagine that the electorate will become more engaged and informed than ever before, thanks to the massive store of free information that the Internet provides. And they hope that the World Wide Web will make good arguments, rather than money or power, prevail in politics. -- Levine, P. (2002, p. 47). The Civic Web: Online Politics and Democratic Values.
At the beginning of the 21st century, there has been considerable buzz about the potential role of Web sites in political campaigns. As the snippets above reveal, it is not uncommon to read that the Web has “stepped up as a force and cannot be ignored,” that races are being fought “in the cafes on Main Street but
195 also in cyberspace,” and that Web sites have become a “must do for congressional candidates.” Less common, of course, are detailed explanations as to how and why this is the case. Accordingly, American citizens have been given a sense that candidates without Web sites will not win future elections. But, to date, this study indicates that it has been a very shallow sense indeed.
A considerable amount of research has focused on traditional (e.g. television, radio) political advertising in areas ranging from experimental effects to historical studies to across-media comparisons. However, very little scholarship exists concerning political campaigns on the Web. This dissertation contributes to the current research by examining, through a cultural lens, how modern political candidates are (or are not) using Web sites to promote themselves and their campaigns in cyberspace.
This purpose of this chapter is to summarize the author's qualitative and quantitative findings on the current state of congressional campaign sites.
Subsequently, a promising template for future campaign sites from the 2002
Congressional race is offered, along with a discussion of how the site relates to the main points of this project. Finally, study implications, limitations, and directions for future research, along with some concluding thoughts, are provided.
The fundamental premise of this dissertation was that campaign Web sites, analyzed with theory from advertising, communication studies, and political science in mind, could reveal something about the nature of campaigns,
196 candidates, and democracy in the United States. Following Bimber's (2001) suggestion that scholars focus on the political content of the Web, the author attempted to gain a better understanding of how candidates are packaged and presented online through a combination of in-depth interviews with political Web designers and a content analysis of congressional sites. It was hoped this dual- method approach would allow the author to more fully examine the texts and discern the stories they tell about modern political culture.
The specific objectives of this dissertation were threefold: (1) to gain insight into the creation and implementation of campaign sites through the eyes of political Web design elites, (2) to assess how candidates present themselves through the content of their congressional campaign sites; and (3) to compare the campaign sites with the official government sites of sitting House members.
Under the assumption that campaign Web sites would be better-developed than those of legislators based on the notion that candidates in campaign mode
"try harder" (see Hart 2000), this study examined the following variables: information content (H1), creative content (H2), technological content (H3), partisan content (H4); and political opposition (H5). Observations pertaining to online accessibility were also offered.
197 FINDINGS
Comments from the Web designers in Chapter Four indicated that despite the expectations of the interviewees and other observers like those quoted at the beginning of this chapter, candidates do not rely on campaign Web sites in the same way they do traditional advertising. In fact, the findings were largely in agreement with those of Klinenberg and Perrin (2000, p. 34), who note that
"Rather than utilizing the potentially revolutionary powers of the Internet, it appears that campaigns will restrict their usage to relatively non-interactive, one directional ways of communicating with voters, supporters, and reporters."
Results from the content analysis in Chapters Five and Six also suggested that congressional campaign sites are currently under-utilized by candidates, and by less moneyed challengers in particular. While campaign sites do offer more partisan content (H4), more political opposition (H5), and better accessibility, they are less informative (H1), less creative (H2), and only slightly more technologically innovative (H3) than those of legislators. The fact that only three of the study's hypotheses were supported suggests either that (1) the incumbency bias is alive and well, and limits the suitability of congressional Web sites as a good fit for this study’s hypotheses, or (2) the author's theory that candidates would put as much effort into their online campaigns as they do into their offline campaigns is flawed in its assumptions and only partially supported on the Web.
198 Reasons that Candidates May be Hesitant to Use the Web
This study makes a unique contribution to the debate surrounding politics and the Internet through its discovery that campaign sites are not currently viewed by candidates with the same importance as political television advertisements. Consequently, data from both the interviews and the content analysis indicate that Web sites are not, at least as of yet, a high priority for most campaigns. This finding raises a significant question. If advertising texts, as
Schudson (1984) asserts, serve to reinforce rather than stimulate cultural values, what are these texts trying to tell us? Directly responding to Schudson, the author proposes that these assumptions cannot yet be applied to the Internet for at least three reasons.
First, if the Web is to grow in popularity as a campaign medium, it will likely be as a privatized organizational tool rather than as a more public mass medium. Though the Web combines elements of television (images and sound) and print (context and depth) along with the added benefit of interactivity, we are, it seems, misguided in thinking that campaign sites will ever be allocated the resources (both monetary and human) that traditional political advertising currently enjoys. Though there are certainly some candidates who embrace the
Web, the fact remains that an estimated seventy-five percent of campaign resources are currently spent on television and radio advertising, while Web sites
199 are still a minute part of the campaign budget -- less than five percent, according to some industry observers (Connell 2002).
In a related matter, since the bulk of campaign resources are pumped into television advertising, the unsupported hypotheses in this dissertation indicate that, contrary to the opinions of the interviewees in Chapter Four and other cyber-optimists, campaign sites should be viewed as a complement to traditional political advertising rather than as an eventual replacement for it. This makes sense because, after all, while the primary task of advertising is to persuade (see
O'Guinn, Allen and Seminik 2000), campaign Web sites are largely focused on those who are already persuaded (Shaw 2002). Further, it is possible that e-mail is, as one consultant observed, the "killer app" in the Internet arsenal (Connell
2002, C-SPAN). Through applications like the e-mail newsletters and e-mail friends/family features revered by the interviewees, candidates have the power to quickly and inexpensively put critical details in front of citizens, to mobilize activists and supporters, and to provide a continuous dialogue with the campaign.
Notes John Horrigan, Senior Research Specialist with the Pew Internet Project,
“It’s easy to see how people take advantage of a growing network. Each friend who gets Internet access and each grandmother who sends her first e-mail builds the community of Internet users. The larger the community gets, the more likely it is that people will turn to e-mail to share intimate and crucial communications,”
(Pew Charitable Trusts 2002, ¶ 7). Equally as important, e-mail features allow
200 candidates complete control over the message and a chance to respond directly to questions, concerns, or misinterpretations of site content.
Web sites should also be considered as ancillary to campaigns rather than central to them due to the issue of sensitization. More specifically, while television has largely de-sensitized the masses, the many types of human- interaction (Stromer-Galley 2000) possible on the Internet may have the power to re-sensitize the public, particularly for certain types of candidates. The data from this study indicate that Web sites may be most valuable in well-funded campaigns
(e.g. presidential) where citizens are presently de-sensitized to the media, and to the massively under-funded grassroots campaigns (e.g. college elections) at the other end of the spectrum that don't garner much media buzz. The fact that congressional sites fall roughly in the middle of this curve suggests that sites at this level of government, and especially those of less wealthy challenging candidates, are more effective for interpersonal rather than persuasive functions.
THE COLUMBUS CAMPAIGN SITE: A TEMPLATE FOR LEARNING
While the author, the interviewees in Chapter Four, and other past observers (see Larsen and Schneider 2000) have found that candidates generally
201 seem more comfortable sticking with the tried-and-true ways campaigns have been won in the past rather than in utilizing the campaign tools of the future, there are some notable exceptions. The campaign site of Craig Columbus, Democratic challenger from Arizona, was one of the most informative, creative, and technologically innovative sites in the content analysis. It also provides a fitting illustration for the four broader stories of control, resources, generational differences, and levels of competition that transpired from the study's findings.
Though Columbus, who fought an uphill battle against four-term
Republican incumbent J.D. Hayworth, eventually lost his bid for a House seat, his campaign site was well-developed in terms of the five variables examined in this study; it also serves as an example of the relative importance of the issues mentioned in the previous paragraph. The site, now defunct, is described in detail below and an illustration of the homepage is provided toward the end of the section.
Upon reaching the Columbus campaign site, a visitor would likely have first noticed the candidate's knack for creativity. At the top of the page, Columbus provided a link to a section entitled "Get to Know Craig" that offered a detailed biography about the candidate's heritage, education, and Arizona roots. The text draws the reader in immediately:
The Columbus family history is a story of Irish and Italian immigrants who came to America to live a better life. It's the story of a patriotic, blue- collar family with a deep entrepreneurial streak. It's a testimonial about
202 how education can unlock doors closed to prior generations - and how American free enterprise rewards new ideas and hard work.
The young, handsome candidate also displayed a number of warm childhood and family photos on his homepage and throughout the site. Though not referring specifically to the Columbus campaign site, Johnson (1999, p. 711) dubs this style a "soft approach," likening it to the strategy used in a famous political spot from the 1980s:
...candidates with kids, jugging and happy and smiling faces, complete
with down-home touches such as recipes for mom's chocolate cream pie.
Here is the version of Ronald Reagan's 1984 soft glow reelection
campaign ads: "Morning in America" comes to the Internet.
In addition to his appealing family-man image, Columbus provided visitors with highlights from his career as a prominent national financial expert, as well as an in-depth discussion of his qualifications for Congress. He also seemed in touch with the issues of the day, mentioning education, the economy, health care, corporate fraud and the environment on his homepage. Endorsements from some of the leading publications in Arizona were included throughout the site, as
203 well as a detailed map of the district for constituents who were unsure of which area Columbus represented.
Additionally, the Columbus for Congress site was one of the most technologically innovative sites analyzed in the study. The candidate offered visitors the all-important options to volunteer and contribute online either by using a credit card or a printable form, as well as voter registration information and a form through which Arizona residents could register to vote by mail. Just as importantly, Columbus offered visitors a chance to sign up for e-mail updates, and an opportunity to listen to audio files in which he talked about the importance of a strong economy. The Columbus site also featured a "Tell Your Friends" option that allowed supporters to send groups of ten friends and family members at a time the following message:
I am impressed by what I've seen from Craig Columbus, a candidate for
Congress in the 5th District. That's why I am supporting him. I encourage
you to check out his website at www.columbusforcongress.com!
In addition to the substantial informational, creative, and technological features provided on the Columbus for Congress site, the candidate was confident enough in his beliefs to let visitors know he represented the Democratic party, describing himself in one section as a "moderate, centrist Democrat who offers
204 new leadership for the Information Age." He also made his partisan differences clear in a section entitled "Columbus vs. Hayworth," and in another specifically designed for journalists called the "Press Room," where Columbus outlined his views on Arizona's economy and education system. These sorts of information indicate that Columbus read the political climate in Arizona's fifth District and concluded that the voters felt it was time for a change in party leadership.
205
Illustration 7.1: Homepage of challenging candidate Craig Columbus (D-AZ).
206 The Columbus for Congress site was different than those of most candidates in the study in that the Arizona challenger lacked the apparent hesitancy of many candidates to accept the Web as a significant campaign medium. For the reasons listed above, it appeared that Columbus used the issues of control, resources, generational differences, and competition uncovered by this cultural study to his advantage in three ways.
First, the fact that Columbus displayed a number of family photographs and, in fact, used a photo of himself with his three-year-old son as the main focal point of his homepage suggests that Columbus applied the same creative strategies to his Web site that are typically used in more traditional campaign image ads. As such, it could be argued that the candidate viewed his Web site as an equally important campaign advertising tool, rather than as an afterthought.
Second, the Columbus site demonstrates the ways in which an under- funded campaign can use the Web to control the flow of important information, organize grassroots support, and get its key messages out to voters. As of the week before the November 2002 election, Columbus had raised only $306,756 while his Republican opponent, "champion fund raiser" J.D. Hayworth, had amassed $1,492,141 (Silverman 2002, ¶ 2). While Columbus couldn't compete in the area of campaign funds, he at least used the Web to level the playing field as much as possible throughout the race, garnering an impressive thirty-six percent share of the final vote in a highly Republican district (Arizona Secretary of State
207 2002).
It was also obvious that the thirty-five-year old incumbent, labeled in the local Arizona newspaper as "an Information Age kind of guy," " better suited to
Silicon Valley than Scottsdale," (Epler 2002, ¶ 18) and "really smart, and a more- than-worthy candidate [than Hayworth]," (Silverman 2002, ¶ 3) was no dinosaur when it came to Web technology. In addition to the innovative features outlined in the previous paragraphs, Columbus took the initiative of sending out audio campaign messages via e-mail -- a voter-outreach technique he claimed had never been used in a political campaign (Epler 2002).
SUMMARY
While Craig Columbus and a few other candidates in the sample provide evidence that headway is being made, it appears that Congressional campaign sites, and particularly those of challenging candidates, are not living up to the high expectations of Web designers, journalists, and other cyber-optimists. Again, there are at least four reasons why candidates may be hesitant to move to online politics: (1) for fear of losing control of the messages they send, (2) to avoid squandering precious resources, or because of an unwillingness to embrace technology due to (3) generational differences; or (4) a lack of competition.
208 These themes appeared in the interview data from Chapter Four in statements like those found below:
Opponents are actively using their rivals' sites, and especially their news releases, studying every single word for inconsistencies, etcetera...Anything you put on a Web site is basically there forever, even if you change it. You want to be very careful. Don't hurt the campaign because you feel like there's something you have to put on there. I5
Open-ended communication tools, such as bulletin boards and chat rooms, provide an opportunity for your opponents to take over your site. I3
By and large, candidates don't devote resources to this...Most candidates recognize you need to have [a site], but it's still kind of on the periphery. I8
One candidate told me that he didn't have the money for a $2,500 Web site because he was going to spend his last $45,000 on a television spot. I6
The more hotly contested the race is, the better the sites are likely to be. I3
There is definitely a generational shift. The people who get it use the Web very effectively, and use it as a core part of their campaigns. The generation still in charge is still the baby boomers who are not yet knowledgeable of the power of this medium. I2
I target a lot of freshman Congresspersons because they tend to be younger, they tend to understand the Internet, and they tend to have staff that understands the Internet. I10
The patterns also appeared in the campaign and legislative sites that were the focus of Chapters Five and Six. A majority of the 263 sites examined in the
209 content analysis were extremely conservative in the amount and types of information they posted, and most shied away from information that could benefit opponents, such as events schedules, financial figures, and press releases. In fact, many politicians neglected to mention even the most basic political issues.
It was also apparent, particularly on the homepages of challenging candidates, that resources were an issue of utmost concern when developing a campaign site. While there were many red flags indicating that politicians had chosen to avoid the often high costs associated with hiring a Web design consultant, some of the most common mistakes were using unprofessional photographs and posting overly cluttered homepages. For example, challenger
Christine Ferguson (R-RI) displayed two dimly-lit photos of the candidate with her son, most likely taken by a friend or family member (see Illustration 7.2).
While Ferguson's images were fine for a personal photo album, they were amateurish and unfit for a campaign Web site. Likewise, challenging candidate
Mike Gallagher's (D-FL) headshot, grainy and brownish-hued, portrayed the candidate gazing off to one side as if in the middle of a daydream; Gallagher's headshot was also poorly lit, with a cream-colored background that blended into the candidate's white shirt, washing out all but his blurry face (see Illustration
7.3). Finally, while Congressman John Shimkus (R-IL) should be given credit for providing constituents with ample information, the candidate went overboard in the process by offering eight detailed press releases on his homepage but
210 neglecting to provide information about himself or his district (see
Illustration 7.4).
Illustration 7.2: Photographs from the homepage of Christine Ferguson (R-RI).
Illustration 7.3: Photograph from the homepage of Mike Gallagher (D-FL).
211
Illustration 7.4: Homepage of Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL).
Lastly, the content analysis revealed reluctance on the part of candidates and legislators to use fairly routine types of online technologies. Whether for generational, competitive, or other reasons, most sites lacked even the basics such as counters, search engines, and feedback forms. For instance, several candidates like challengers Stephen Engel (D-AL) and David Crawford (R-AL) failed to equip their sites with even one of the features viewed by many observers as critical to the success of online campaigns: contribution and volunteer recruitment tools, e-mail newsletters, and e-mail friends/family capabilities. Legislators like
212 Rod Blagojevich (D-IL), Michael Bilirakis (R-FL), and Barbara Lee (D-CA) also neglected to take advantage of the e-mail newsletter and e-mail friends/family features that could assist them in rallying district supporters, as well as other technologies such as simple polls or surveys that would allow the legislators to gauge public opinion about pressing political issues in their districts.
In a sense, these four concepts describe the roadblocks to politics on the
World Wide Web in a richer way than has been previously detailed. Further, the data from this study reveal the types of information (both political and non- political) that candidates are -- and are not -- willing to share, the level of online creativity they aspire to, and the technological innovations they're most comfortable with.
While candidates have always desired control over their messages, it is interesting, but perhaps not surprising, that this sentiment carries over to the Web.
Additionally, while research in political science (Abramowitz 2000; Cover 1977), and even in marketing as it pertains to brands (Kardes and Kalyanaram 1992;
Szymanski, Troy and Bharadwaj 1995), acknowledges the power of the incumbent advantage, the effects that this bias has on the viability of challengers and the strength of challenging campaigns has perhaps not been fully-documented.
This dissertation found intriguing differences between incumbents and challengers, and many of these differences may be related to the amount of
213 resources they coveted. Further, campaign logic regarding competitive races suggests that when one candidate raises the bar, the others must follow (see
Abramson, Aldrich and Rohde 1995). To date, it seems as if this bar has not been raised in relation to campaign Web sites, with perhaps the exception of those in more tech-savvy areas like San Francisco, Austin, and Washington, D.C. As one interviewee in Chapter Four stated, "In low broadband districts, I keeps the sites very bare bones so that people won't have trouble loading the sites or viewing the contents39." Campaign logic also dictates that the great majority of U.S.
Representatives are returned to office at the end of the electoral season (see
Abramowitz 2000). Perhaps in the future, as was previously mentioned, high- profile campaigns as well as those with very low resources will be most open to
Web sites.
Future Research
Although this dissertation establishes a foundation for examining a variety of political campaign sites, it barely scratches the surface of the work that needs to be done in an effort to gain a better understanding of the topic. As such, there are several areas of study that future scholars should explore.
39 I7. 214 Multi-methodological projects. First, researchers should continue to examine campaign Web sites both qualitatively and quantitatively since, to date, few academic studies have examined how candidates present themselves online, or how citizens approach, learn from, and evaluate these sites.
Multiple-data sets. Second, scholars should study political sites representing other areas of government -- senatorial or gubernatorial, for instance -- in an attempt to assess how public officials both above and below the House level are utilizing online advertising strategies. Additionally, to supplement the interviews with Web design professionals, researchers could speak with political candidates and/or political Web site users to glean a firsthand view of their thoughts and feelings about these sites.
Various resource levels. Third, differences in resources between challengers and incumbents (who almost always have a significant financial advantage) and their effects on campaign sites should also be more closely scrutinized.
Various theoretical approaches. Fourth, while this dissertation is grounded largely in cultural theory from advertising, communication studies, and political science, it might prove helpful for researchers to draw more from fields such as anthropology and psychology, since researchers in these areas often have a
215 deeper, or at least a different, understanding of cultural values, beliefs, and meaning. Drawing from linguistic anthropology, for example, a researcher might choose to more closely examine the actual texts (i.e. words) in campaign Web sites to see what they reveal about political candidates and culture. Similarly, a more psychology-minded scholar might choose to focus on how politically- interested visitors actually interact with campaign sites.
Studying Web sites in context. Finally, while touched upon in this project, a direct comparison between political television advertisements and campaign Web sites was not discussed at length; a systematic study contrasting these two types of campaign advertising would be especially insightful.
Limitations
While the findings in this dissertation might not have surfaced had the author explored the topic using other research methods, there were several limitations inherent in using a cultural approach for this project. With regard to the interviews, while thirteen highly qualified individuals were selected for the qualitative portion of the project, a larger sample size might have yielded different results. Additionally, speaking with political Web designers from other
216 organizations or in other parts of the country might have produced dissimilar findings. On the other hand, however, many of the individuals were identified by a well-respected magazine for campaign professionals, and all were representative of the “elites” in a very small field. Further, the interviewees offered responses that, once analyzed, were quite similar. In other words, because the designers often validated the responses of their peers, this small sample size is tolerated
(Dexter 1970).
In reference to the content analysis, while viewing political Web sites through a cultural lens provides an intriguing snapshot of the sites in their infancy, it is also limited by the fact that the content of the Web is constantly changing.
Hence, it is probable that the sites examined for this dissertation have changed in both major and minor ways since the time the analysis was undertaken. Second, only the sites of House candidates and legislators were examined; while these sites are beneficial in that they offer high levels of variance, if other races up or down the ballot were analyzed, the results would almost certainly vary from those found in this study. Third, though the campaign sample (N=145) took into account all major party candidates who posted a Web site in the relevant districts, it represents a minimal portion of the total candidate pool, since there were almost one-thousand incumbents and challengers running for open House seats in 2002.
Similarly, while there are 436 members in the House of Representatives, only 118 legislative sites were coded for this project, leaving a large number of House sites
217 unexplored. Finally, there were restrictions on the types of content that could be posted to legislative sites; thus, it is possible that many of the differences found between campaign and legislative sites were dictated by the rules of the House rather than the preferences of legislators.
Conclusion
Elections are significant because they provide Americans the right to choose the political leaders of our country. They are, in fact, at the heart of democracy itself. As Trent and Friedenberg (1995, p. 3) observe, "Whether the election will determine the occupants of two seats in a city council or one chair in the Oval Office of the White House, the political election campaign is an essential element of a democratic system." As we enter the 21st century, the roles the
Internet and the World Wide Web will play in that system remain to be seen.
Though the Internet first came to prominence during the presidential campaign of 1996, it was not until 1998 that adequate campaign Web sites began appearing at the statewide level. It was at this point that these sites began to emerge as "more than just a communications tool," (Connell 2002). By 2000, there was evidence that even more progress had been made, as campaigns began
218 to use the Web for such tasks as fundraising, volunteer solicitation, and mobilization of supporters.
This progress has not gone unnoticed by congressional candidates. In
2002, more House (62%) and Senate (72%) candidates posted Web sites than ever before -- a fifty percent increase since the 2000 elections (Fielding 2002).
Moreover, recent data indicates that the public has also begun to warm to the idea of campaigning on the Web. A case in point: over a three-day period leading up to the 2002 election, over 2.75 million politically-interested America Online members used the Web to send instant messages and research political issues and candidates. Additionally, 2.4 million members participated in an AOL online political poll (Fielding 2002). These numbers are significant for two reasons.
First, they encompass only the AOL population, leaving out countless millions who tuned in to the Web for election news using other providers. Second, the numbers represent a mid-term race, which history has shown does not typically receive as much attention as those in presidential election years.
As was mentioned in Chapter Two, although Internet adoption rates have been much quicker, the hype surrounding the Internet has not been unlike that which occurred during the introduction of other new media such as radio in the
1920s and television in the 1960s. However, as the Web design consultants interviewed for this study and other observers in politics, journalism, and academics have noted, although Web sites are slowly being integrated into
219 campaigns, there is still much progress to be made. As Connell (2002 C-SPAN) notes, "Campaigns are doing a better job of going online, but we have a long way to go before we can claim victory that we have used the net in a savvy way."
The hesitancy of candidates to use the Web as a campaign medium despite its relatively low cost and high reach remains puzzling to many. Perhaps Mindich
(1998, p. 7) provides some direction:
Across the broad sweep of time, as speech was joined by writing, followed by the printing press, the telegraph radio, television, and now new computer technologies, practitioners and scholars have struggled to make sense of the changes attendant with each new media system. Often, those who struggled to explicate the new technologies failed to grasp their future implications.
Mindich (p. 7) cites the example of Socrates' resistance to writing, apparent in his statement, "[writing] will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls...they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing." Conceivably, the Internet is to many of today's political candidates what writing was to Socrates in the days of ancient Greece.
In the year 2002, it seems that most political candidates are disinclined to view Web sites as a significant campaign advertising medium largely for reasons of control, resources, and generational and competitive differences. Instead, the best practice on the Web currently appears to be internal campaign
220 communication; that is, communication with activists and supporters through various e-mail features that allow for mobilization, fundraising, and volunteer solicitation, as well as privatized messages accessible only by those within the campaign. This sentiment is accurately reflected in the words of the designer from
Chapter Four who found e-mail so important that he encouraged his clients to add an e-mail newsletter sign-up form to every page of their site. As he noted, "Sites are important but email may be even more important...It's a key component of the whole strategy because you keep people close that way. You keep them volunteering, contributing, and reading your site40."
Since the story of much of political advertising has centered on control
(e.g. targeted media buys, direct mail, etc.), money (e.g. the cost of local and national ad buys), and competition (e.g. the incumbent advantage), it makes sense that campaign Web sites would be considered with these issues in mind as well. It is the author's belief that the cultural approach taken in this study greatly assisted in putting the development of the Web as a political advertising tool into context.
In the future, it appears that Web sites have the chance to play a more important role in campaigns, particularly if the aforementioned four conditions are met. That is, (1) candidates must begin to feel that they have complete control over their online information, (2) candidates must begin to make campaign sites a priority by allocating adequate resources to make their sites more informative,
40 I4. 221 more attractive, and more technologically innovative, (3) candidates in both competitive and non-competitive races must make campaign Web sites a top priority; and (4) candidates of all ages must become more comfortable with new campaign technologies. All of these factors combined make it more likely that visitors will come to rely on campaign Web sites for much of the political information they currently receive from traditional political advertising.
Though it remains to be seen whether Web sites will actually replace traditional political advertising or simply serve as a complement to it, the findings from this dissertation -- in particular, the lack informative, creative, and technological content on campaign sites -- create a problem for online candidates for at least two reasons. First, it will become increasingly tricky for candidates to maintain their credibility if their communications are seen as old-fashioned or archaic. Second, the relatively slow progress of congressional candidates in providing citizens with online access to political information has encouraged the public to turn to a growing number of online media outlets (e.g. CNN.com; USA
Today.com) for news about candidates and elections, thus taking control away from politicians and pushing campaign sites to the rhetorical backburner.
Ansolabehere and Iyengar (as cited in Thurber and Nelson 1995, p. 101) note, "Today, television is the principal intermediary between politicians and voters." This comment begs an important question: What role will the Internet and the World Wide Web play within the changing landscape of political campaigns?
222 While this question may remain unanswered for quite some time, there is one relative certainty: whatever tack future scholars take in examining the topic of campaign Web sites, the four factors unearthed in this dissertation cannot be discounted or overlooked.
223 Appendix A: Campaign and Legislative Web Site List
Campaign Web Sites (saved 6/12/02 - 6/13/02; 6/18/02)
State Name of Site Alabama Jo Bonner www.jobonner.com Robert E. Bud Cramer www.budcramer.org Stephen Engel www.engelforhouse.com J. Don Foster www.fosterforcongress.com Mike Rogers www.mikerogersforcongress.com Joe Turnham www.joeturnham.com Arizona Lisa Atkins www.lisaatkins.com Scott Bundgaard www.bundgaard.com Craig Columbus www.columbusforcongress.com Elizabeth Farley www.farley4congress.com Jeff Flake www.flake2002.com J.D. Hayworth www.jdhayworth.com Dick Hensley www.dickhensley.com Dusko Jovicic www.duskojovicic2002.org John Keegan www.keegan2002.com Larry King www.larryking4cd5.com
224 Campaign Web Sites (saved 6/12/02 - 6/13/02; 6/18/02)
State Name of Site California Howard Beeman www.beemanforcongress.com Clint Engler www.englerforcongress.com Sam Farr www.friendsoffarr.org John Graham www.johngraham4congress.com Darrell Issa www.darrellissa.com Stuart Johnson www.stujohnson.org Barbara Lee www.leeforcongress.org Joseph Henry Nixon www.nixonforcongress.org Doug Ose www.dougose.com George Radanovich www.radanovich.org Oscar Velasco www.votevelasco.com Colorado Ramona Martinez www.ramonamartinez.com Connecticut Jeff Benedict www.jeffbenedict.com Joe Courtney www.courtneyforcongress.org Stephanie Sanchez www.voteforsanchez.com Rob Simmons www.simmonsforcongress.com Delaware Steve Biener www.hometown.aol.com\stevebiener Michael Castle www.castlecampaign.org Florida Virginia Brown-Waite www.brown-waitecongress.com Ander Crenshaw www.andercrenshaw.com Mike Gallagher www.mfghr2002.com Don Gessner www.gessner2002.com Chuck Kalogianis www.chuckforcongress.com Gerry Newby www.gnewby.com Deborah Pueschel www.questforamerica.com Cliff Stearns www.cliffstearns.net
225 Campaign Web Sites (saved 6/12/02 - 6/13/02; 6/18/02)
State Name of Site Georgia Don Smart www.smartforcongress.com Idaho Butch Otter www.otter4idaho.com Betty Richardson www.richardsonforcongress.org Illinois Tim Johnson www.timjohnsonforcongress.com David Phelps www.phelps2002.com Johh Shimkus www.shimkus.org Ray Wardingly www.members.aol.com\raywardingley Jerry Weller www.jerryweller.com Indiana Bryan Hartke www.bryanhartke.com John Hostettler www.johnhostettler.com Mike Sodrel www.mikesodrel.com Mark Souder www.souderforcongress.com Iowa Ann Hutchinson www.annhutchinson.com Jim Nussle www.jimnussle.com Louisiana Rodney Alexander www.rodneyalexanderforcongress.com Robert Barham www.barhamforcongress.com Lee Fletcher www.leefletcher.com Clyde Holloway www.clydeholloway.com Maryland Oz Bengur www.ozbengurforcongress.com Helen Bentley www.bentleyforcongress.com Benjamin Cardin www.cardinforcongress.com John Jamele www.jamele2002.com John Kimble www.kimbleforcongress.com
226 Campaign Web Sites (saved 6/12/02 - 6/13/02; 6/18/02)
State Name of Site Michigan Vernon Ehlers www.ehlers.org Kate Lynnes www.katelynnesforcongress.com Mike Rogers www.rogers4congress.com Mike Simpson www.simpsonforuscongress.com Bart Stupak www.stupak4congress.org Minnesota Clyde Billington www.billingtonforcongress.com Bob Lemen www.lemen2002.org James Oberstar www.oberstar.org Collin Peterson www.petersonforcongress.com Janet Robert www.janetrobertforcongress.com Missouri Todd Akin www.akin.org Dick Gephardt www.dickgephardt2002.com Nebraska Lee Terry www.leeterry.com New Hampshire Wayne Barrows www.barrows2002.com Bob Bevill www.bevill.com Jeb Bradley www.jebforcongress.com Martha Fuller Clark www.clarkforcongress.com Gary Hoffman www.hoffmanforhouse.com Sean Mahoney www.mahoneyforcongress.com John Stephen www.stephenforcongress.com Fran Wendelboe www.franforcongress.com New Jersey Michael Ferguson www.fergusonforcongress.com
227 Campaign Web Sites (saved 6/12/02 - 6/13/02; 6/18/02)
State Name of Site New York Tim Bishop www.bishopforcongress2002.com Sherwood Boehlert www.boehlert.com Felicia Gross www.feliciagross.com Steve Israel www.israelforcongress.com Warren Redlich www.wredlich.com North Carolina David Crawford www.crawfordforcongress.org Ohio David Hobson www.hobsonforcongress.com Dennis Kucinich www.kucinich.net Rob Portman www.robportman.org Charles Sanders www.charleswsanders.org Oklahoma Doug Dodd www.dougdodd.com Ernest Istook www.istook.com Oregon Earl Blumenauer www.earlblumenauer.com Peter DeFazio www.defazioforcongress.org Pennsylvania Bill Choby www.billchoby.org John Murtha www.murtha.org Edward O'Brien www.obrienforcongress.com Rhode Island Mike Battles www.battlesforcongress.com Christine Ferguson www.christyforcongress.com Dave Rogers www.daverogers.org South Carolina John Spratt www.johnsprattforcongress.com
228 Campaign Web Sites (saved 6/12/02 - 6/13/02; 6/18/02)
State Name of Site Tennessee John Arriola www.arriolaforcongress.com Janice Bowling www.bowlingforcongress.org Jim Cooper www.jimcooperforcongress.com Chris Cornett www.cornettforcongress.com Adam Cox www.coxforcongress2002.org Lincoln Davis www.lincolndavis.com Mike Greene www.mikegreeneforcongress.com Fran Marcum www.franmarcum.com Andy Ogles www.andyogles.com Gayle Ray www.gayleray.com Zach Wamp www.wampcongress.com Texas Felix Alvarado www.alvarado4congress2002.com Chris Bell www.chrisbellforcongress.com Mike Burgess www.doctorinthehouse.info Tom Delay www.tomdelay.com Lloyd Doggett www.doggettforcongress.com Sam Johnson www.samjohnsonforcongress.com Paul LeBon www.lebon4us.com Manny Molera www.moleraforcongress.com Tom Reiser www.tomreiserforcongress.com Tim Riley www.rileyforcongress.com Vermont Bill Meub www.meubforcongress.com Bernie Sanders www.bernie.org Virginia Rick Boucher www.boucherforcongress.com Jo Ann Davis www.joanndavis.com Jay Katzen www.jaykatzen.com
229 Campaign Web Sites (saved 6/12/02 - 6/13/02; 6/18/02)
State Name of Site Washington Sarah Casada www.sarahcasada.com Jay Inslee www.inslee4congress.com Joe Marine www.electjoemarine.com West Virginia Shelley Moore Capito www.capito2000.com Jim Humphreys www.jimhumphreysforcongress.com Wisconsin Mark Green www.votemarkgreen.com Dale Moore www.dalemoore.org Paul Ryan www.ryanforcongress.com James Sensenbrenner www.sensenbrenner.org Scott Stillwell www.spunkets.com
230
Legislator Web Sites (saved 7/23/02)
State Name of Site Alabama Sonny Callahan www.house.gov\callahan Bud Cramer www.house.gov\cramer Bob Riley www.house.gov\riley Arizona J.D. Hayworth www.house.gov\hayworth Jim Kolbe www.house.gov\kolbe Ed Pastor www.house.gov\pastor California Joe Baca www.house.gov\baca Susan Davis www.house.gov\susandavis Anna Eshoo www-eshoo.house.gov Sam Farr www.house.gov\farr Jane Harman www.house.gov\harman Darrell Issa www.house.gov\issa Tom Lantos www.house.gov\lantos Barbara Lee www.house.gov\lee Jerry Lewis www.house.gov\jerrylewis Zoe Lofgren www.zoelofgren.house.gov Gary Miller www.house.gov\garymiller George Miller www.house.gov\georgemiller Doug Ose www.house.gov\ose Nancy Pelosi www.house.gov\pelosi George Radanovich www.radanovich.house.gov Lynn Woolsey www.woolsey.house.gov Colorado Diana DeGette www.house.gov\degette Connecticut Christopher Shays www.house.gov\shays Rob Simmons www.house.gov\simmons
231
Legislator Web Sites (saved 7/23/02)
State Name of Site Delaware Mike Castle www.house.gov\castle Florida Mike Bilirakis www.house.gov\bilirakis Ander Crenshaw www.crenshaw.house.gov\crenshaw-web Alcee Hastings www.house.gov\alceehastings Cliff Stearns www.house.gov\stearns Karen Thurman www.house.gov\thurman Dave Weldon www.house.gov\weldon Georgia Saxby Chambliss www.house.gov\chambliss Jack Kingston www.house.gov\kingston Idaho Butch Otter www.house.gov\otter Illinois Rod Blagojevich www.house.gov\blagojevich Bobby Rush www.house.gov\rush John Shimkus www.house.gov\shimkus Jerry Weller www.house.gov\weller Indiana Baron Hill www.house.gov\baronhill John Hostettler www.house.gov\hostettler Tim Roemer www.house.gov\roemer Iowa Jim Leach www.house.gov\leach Kansas Jerry Moran www.house.gov\moranks01 Jim Ryun www.ryun.house.gov Todd Tiahrt www.house.gov\tiahrt
232
Legislator Web Sites (saved 7/23/02)
State Name of Site Louisiana Jim McCrery www.house.gov\mccrery Massachusetts Barney Frank www.house.gov\frank Maryland Ben Cardin www.house.gov\cardin Albert Wynn www.wynn.house.gov Michigan John Conyers www.house.gov\conyers Vernon Ehlers www.house.gov\ehlers Pete Hoekstra www.house.gov\hoekstra Mike Rogers www.house.gov\mikerogers Nick Smith www.house.gov\nicksmith Minnesota Bill Luther www.house.gov\luther Betty McCollum www.house.gov\mccollum Jim Oberstar wwwa.house.gov\oberstar Collin Peterson wwwa.house.gov\collinpeterson Martin Sabo www.house.gov\sabo Mississippi Bennie Thompson www.house.gov\thompson Roger Wicker www.house.gov\wicker Missouri Todd Akin www.akin.house.gov Jo Ann Emerson www.house.gov\emerson Dick Gephardt www.dickgephardt.house.gov Nebraska Lee Terry www.leeterry.house.gov New Hampshire John Sununu www.house.gov\sununu
233
Legislator Web Sites (saved 7/23/02)
State Name of Site New Jersey Mike Ferguson www.house.gov\ferguson New York Sherwood Boehlert www.house.gov\boehlert Felix Grucci www.house.gov\grucci Steve Israel www.house.gov\israel Michael McNulty www.house.gov\mcnulty Jerrold Nadler www.house.gov\nadler Jose Serrano www.house.gov\serrano North Carolina Richard Burr www.house.gov\burr Ohio Dave Hobson www.house.gov\hobson Dennis Kucinich www.house.gov\kucinich Michael Oxley www.house.gov\oxley Rob Portman www.house.gov\portman Deborah Pryce www.house.gov\pryce Oklahoma Ernest Istook www.house.gov\istook John Sullivan www.sullivan.house.gov Oregon Peter DeFazio www.house.gov\defazio Pennsylvania John Murtha www.house.gov\murtha Joe Pitts www.house.gov\pitts John Toomey www.house.gov\toomey Rhode Island Patrick Kennedy www.house.gov\patrick kennedy South Carolina John Spratt www.house.gov\spratt
234
Legislator Web Sites (saved 7/23/02)
State Name of Site Tennessee Bob Clement www.clement.house.gov Harold Ford www.house.gov/ford Bart Gordon www.house.gov\gordon Van Hilleary www.house.gov\hilleary Zach Wamp www.house.gov\wamp Texas Dick Armey www.armey.house.gov Joe Barton www.house.gov\barton Ken Bentsen www.house.gov/bentsen Tom DeLay www.tomdelay.house.gov Gene Green www.house.gov\green Sam Johnson www.samjohnson.house.gov Lamar Smith www.lamarsmith.house.gov Vermont Bernie Sanders www.bernie.house.gov Virginia Jo Ann Davis www.house.gov\joanndavis Rick Boucher www.house.gov\boucher Washington Brian Baird www.house.gov\baird Jay Inslee www.house.gov\inslee Adam Smith www.house.gov\adam smith West Virginia www.house.gov\inslee Shelley Moore Capito www.house.gov\capito
235
Legislator Web Sites (saved 7/23/02)
State Name of Site Wisconsin Tom Barrett www.house.gov\barrett Mark Green www.house.gov\markgreen Ron Kind www.house.gov\kind Paul Ryan www.house.gov\ryan James Sensenbrenner www.house.gov\sensenbrenner
236 Appendix B: Campaign Web Site Coding Sheet 2002
Number______Party Affiliation______Year______Incumbency______Name______Region______State & District______Gender______
WEB CHARACTERISTICS First Five Links: Number of links on Homepage______1.______Graphics on Homepage (Y/N)______2. ______Number of Graphics______3. ______Photos on Homepage (Y/N)______4. ______Number of Photos on Homepage______5. ______Multimedia (Y/N) ______Type ______
237 CREATIVE FEATURES
A. CONTENT B. INNOVATION Biography______Audio Files______Candidate Photos______Bulletin Board/Chat Room______Citizen Photos______Campaign Advertisements______Contact Information ______Campaign Merchandise Sold on Site______Disclosure of Site Sponsorship____ Contribute/Donate______District Information/Map______Counter______Number______Endorsements______Downloadable Campaign Materials______Events Schedule______E-mail Family/Friends about Candidate____ Family Photos______E-Mail Newsletter Updates Sign-Up______Greeting Message from Candidate__ Webmaster Feedback ______Issues - District______Online Town Hall Meetings______Issues - National______Polls______Issues - State______Pop-Up Message______Children's Section______Type of Pop-Up Message______Press Releases______Privacy Statement______Number of Press Releases______Search Engine______Campaign Staff Information______Site Last Updated______Date______Voting Information______Surveys______Washington D.C. Photos______Video Files______Web Site Designer Name______Volunteer Sign-Up______
PRESENTATION OF SELF: ______
238 CULTURAL FEATURES
Activist/Fringe Candidate______Career in Politics______Corporate Entrepreneur______Dedicated Incumbent ______Political Newcomer/Outsider______Other______
POLITICAL FEATURES
A. PARTISANSHIP/OPPOSITION Partisanship______Type of Partisanship____ Explain______Other______Political Opposition______Type of Political Opposition ____ Other______
B. BASIC POLITICAL ISSUES Children/Family______Crime______Defense/Military______Drugs (Illegal)______Economy/Jobs______Education______Energy/Environment______Health Care/Prescription Drugs______Immigration______Internet/Technology______Social Security/Seniors______Taxes______Terrorism______Veterans______Welfare______Other______
239 C. CONTROVERSIAL POLITICAL ISSUES Controversial/Delicate Political Issues______Abortion______Capital Punishment______Gay/Lesbian______Racial Issues/Affirmative Action______Religion______Other______
INTERESTING FEATURES/OBSERVATIONS: ______
240 Appendix C: Legislative Web Site Coding Sheet 1996-2001
#______Member ______Party ______If yes, explain______
WEB CHARACTERISTICS first link______Multimedia yes______no______# of links______If yes, explain______text and graphics yes____ no____ Interactivity yes______no______photo ______If yes, explain______
POLITICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Topics: Children's Page yes____ no____ 1=campaign 2=legislation Last Updated Link yes____ no____ 3=committee membership work 4=ethics/perks/scandal Counter yes____ no____ 5=House hearings 6=self as source Political Opposition yes____ no____ 7=press release If yes, explain______# of releases______8=public opinion Privacy Statement yes____ no____
POLITICAL ISSUES: Economic Issues Group Interests 1=balanced budget 9=abortion 2=minimum wage 10=environment 3=tax reform 11=foreign policy 4=welfare reform 12=gay/lesbian issues 5=jobs 13=affirmative action Social Issues 14=crime and violence 6=education 00=other______7=health care ______8=social security/Medicare
241 STRUCTURE:
First 10 links: 1.______2.______3.______4.______5.______6.______7.______8.______9.______10.______
Comments: ______
242 Appendix D: Campaign Web Site Codebook 2002
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
1. NUMBER All candidates will be listed in alphabetical order and assigned a unique number.
2. YEAR
3. NAME
4. STATE & DISTRICT
5. GENDER 1 = Male 2 = Female
6. PARTY AFFILIATION 1 = Democrat 2 = Republican 3 = Independent
7. INCUMBENCY 1 = Incumbent 2 = Challenger
243 8. REGION The region each candidate represents will be recorded. States will be divided into four regions, based on geographic divisions as assigned by the United States Census Bureau (2000). 1 = Northeast 2 = South 3 = Midwest 4 = West
Northeast Region: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania
South Region: Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas
Midwest Region: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio
West Region: Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, Hawaii
9. VOTE RETURN Each candidate's level of support (i.e. vote percentage) in his/her respective district will be recorded.
10. NUMBER OF LINKS ON HOMEPAGE ______List first five links (start at top left): 1.______2.______3.______4.______5.______
244 FIRST FIVE LINKS Enter one of the following numbers for the First Five Links on the Homepage -- e.g. if the first link is Biography, enter 2.
Value Label 1 Biography 2 Campaign Advertisements 3 Campaign Merchandise Store 4 Contact 5 Contribute 6 District Information/Map 7 Downloadable Campaign Materials 8 E-mail Friends/Family about Candidate 9 Endorsements 10 Events Schedule 11 Feedback Form 12 Fun Links 13 Greeting/Welcome 14 Guestbook 15 Issues - District 16 Issues - National 17 Issues - State 18 Children's Section 19 Legislation 20 Newsletter/Updates Sign-up 21 Photos 22 Polls/Surveys 23 Position Paper 24 Press Releases 25 Staff Information 26 Volunteer 27 Voting Registration Information 28 Washington D.C. Photos 97 Missing 98 Other 99 Nothing
245 11. GRAPHICS ON HOMEPAGE 1 = Yes 2 = No (if no, skip to 13)
12. NUMBER OF GRAPHICS ON HOMEPAGE______
13. PHOTOS ON HOMEPAGE 1 = Yes 2 = No (if no, skip to 15)
14. NUMBER OF PHOTOS ON HOMEPAGE______
15. MULTIMEDIA 1 = Yes 2 = No (if no, skip to 17)
16. TYPE OF MULTIMEDIA______
246 DEPENDENT VARIABLES
I. CREATIVE FEATURES
A. CONTENT 17. Biography 1 = Yes 2 = No 18. Candidate Photos 1 = Yes 2 = No 19. Citizen Photos 1 = Yes 2 = No 20. Contact Information for Campaign 1 = Yes 2 = No 21. Disclosure of Site Sponsorship (e.g. "This site has been paid for by...") 1 = Yes 2 = No 22. District Information/Map 1 = Yes 2 = No 23. Endorsements 1 = Yes 2 = No 24. Events Schedule 1 = Yes 2 = No 25. Family Photos 1 = Yes 2 = No 26. Greeting Message from Candidate 1 = Yes 2 = No 27. Issues - "Current" or "Hot" 1 = Yes 2 = No
247 28. Issues - District 1 = Yes 2 = No 29. Issues - National 1 = Yes 2 = No 30. Issues - State 1 = Yes 2 = No 31. Children's Section 1 = Yes 2 = No 32. Press Releases 1 = Yes 2 = No (if no, skip to 33) Number of Press Releases______33. Campaign Staff Information 1 = Yes 2 = No 34. Voting Registration Information 1 = Yes 2 = No 35. Washington D.C. Photos 1 = Yes 2 = No 36. Webmaster/Designer Name 1 = Yes 2 = No
B. INNOVATION 37. Audio Files 1 = Yes 2 = No 38. Bulletin Board/Chat Room 1 = Yes 2 = No 39. Campaign Advertisements 1 = Yes 2 = No
248 40. Campaign Merchandise Sold on Site 1 = Yes 2 = No 41. Contribution Capability 1 = Yes 2 = No 42. Counter 1 = Yes 2 = No 43. Downloadable Campaign Materials 1 = Yes 2 = No 44. E-mail Friends/Family about Candidate 1 = Yes 2 = No 45. Newsletter/Updates Sign-Up 1 = Yes 2 = No 46. Feedback Form 1 = Yes 2 = No 47. Online Town Hall Meetings 1 = Yes 2 = No 48. Polls 1 = Yes 2 = No 49. Pop-Up Message 1 = Yes 2 = No 50. Type of Pop-Up Message 1 = Fundraising Solicitation 2 = Welcome 3 = Volunteer 4 = Other______51. Privacy Statement 1 = Yes 2 = No 52. Search Engine 1 = Yes 2 = No
249 53. Site Last Updated 1 = Yes 2 = No (if no, skip to 54) Date______54. Surveys 1 = Yes 2 = No 55. Video Files 1 = Yes 2 = No 56. Volunteer Sign-Up 1 = Yes 2 = No
PRESENTATION OF SELF: ______
II. CULTURAL FEATURES 57. Activist/Fringe Candidate 1 = Yes 2 = No 58. Career in Politics 1 = Yes 2 = No 59. Corporate Entrepreneur 1 = Yes 2 = No 60. Dedicated Incumbent 1 = Yes 2 = No 61. Political Newcomer/Outsider 1 = Yes 2 = No 62. Other______
250 III. POLITICAL FEATURES
A. PARTISANSHIP & OPPOSITION 63. Partisanship 1 = Yes 2 = No 64. Type of Partisanship 1 = Photo with Prominent Party Member(s) Explain______2 = Partisan Graphic(s) Explain______3 = Partisan Text(s) Explain______Other______65. Political Opposition 1 = Yes 2 = No (if no, skip to 67) 66. Type of Political Opposition 1 = Attack Ads Introducing Opposition Explain______2 = Attack Ads Responding to Opposition Explain______3 = Press Releases/Text Introducing Opposition Explain______4 = Press Releases/Text Responding to Opposition Explain______Other______
B. BASIC POLITICAL ISSUES 67. Children/Family 1 = Yes 2 = No 68. Crime 1 = Yes 2 = No 69. Defense/Military 1 = Yes 2 = No 70. Drugs (Illegal) 1 = Yes 2 = No 71. Economy/Jobs 1 = Yes 2 = No
251 72. Education 1 = Yes 2 = No 73. Energy/Environment 1 = Yes 2 = No 74. Health Care/Prescription Drugs 1 = Yes 2 = No 75. Immigration 1 = Yes 2 = No 76. Internet/Technology 1 = Yes 2 = No 77. Social Security/Seniors 1 = Yes 2 = No 78. Taxes 1 = Yes 2 = No 79. Terrorism 1 = Yes 2 = No 80. Veterans 1 = Yes 2 = No 81. Welfare 1 = Yes 2 = No 82. Other______
C. CONTROVERSIAL POLITICAL ISSUES 83. Controversial/Delicate Political Issues 1 = Yes 2 = No (if no, skip to Interesting Features/Observations) 83a. Abortion 1 = Yes 2 = No
252 83b. Capital Punishment 1 = Yes 2 = No 83c. Gay/Lesbian 1 = Yes 2 = No 83d. Racial Issues/Affirmative Action 1 = Yes 2 = No 83e. Religion 1 = Yes 2 = No 83f. Other______
INTERESTING FEATURES/OBSERVATIONS: ______
253 Appendix E: Legislative Web Site Codebook 1996-2001
NUMBER Number · Unique #…we have assigned this number, top of coding sheet.
YEAR Year · Type the year during which the site was posted and coded—e.g. 1996 or 2001
MEMBER Member · Type the Member’s Name (up to 100 characters)—e.g. Gary Condit
STATE_DI State_District · Type the State and District—e.g. Condit=CA_18
TIME 1_2 Time 1 and 2 · Indicate whether or not the representative appeared in both 1996 and 2001
Value Label 1 Yes--Rep appeared in 1996 and 2001 2 No---Rep was replaced in 2001
PARTY Party
· Enter one of the following #s for Party I.D.—e.g. Condit=Democrat, enter “1”
Value Label______1 Democrat 2 Republican 3 Independent
254 PRTY_PAG “Party Listed on Homepage”
· Enter one of the following #s for “Party Listed on Homepage”—e.g. Blue Dog Democrat appears on Condit’s page=1
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
LINK_1 First Link
· Enter one of the following #s for the First Link on the Homepage—e.g. Condit’s first link is Biography=2
Value Label 1.00 Welcome 2.00 Biography 3.00 Contact Member 4.00 Committee Assignments/Work 5.00 Legislation Information 6.00 Issues Link 7.00 Photos 8.00 Press Releases 9.00 Government Resources (flag, letters of rec, etc.) 10.00 Visit DC Information 11.00 Map 12.00 Web Links 13.00 About District Concerns 14.00 About State Concerns 15.00 About Local Concerns 16.00 Fun Links (For Fun) 17.00 Position Papers 18.00 Town Hall Meeting Information 19.00 Surveys 20.00 Public Opinion 21.00 Schedule (Member's Schedule) 22.00 U.S. House Site Link 23.00 Constituent Services 24.00 Multimedia 25.00 Speeches 26.00 Educational Materials
255 27.00 Guestbook 28.00 What's New 29.00 Party Link (including Blue Dog Democrats) 30.00 Kids Link 31.00 Government / Federal Problems 32.00 Member's Washington Office 33.00 House Hearings 34.00 Member's State Office 35.00 Privacy Statement 36.00 Job Opportunities (e.g. Internships, Pages, etc.) 37.00 Member's Voting Record 38.00 Email Update Sign-up 39.00 Staff 40.00 Government Links (e.g. Senate, Library of Congress, etc.) 96.00 Missing 98.00 Other 99.00 Nothing
LINKS_# Number of Links
· Type in the Number of Links on the page—e.g. Condit=23
TEXT_GR Text and Graphics
· Enter one of the following #s for the appearance of Text and Graphics— e.g. Condit’s page featured them=1
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
COLOR Color
· Enter one of the following #s for the appearance of Color—e.g. Condit’s page featured it=1
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
256 PICTURE Picture
· Enter one of the following #s for the appearance of a picture(s)—e.g. Condit’s page featured them=1
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
PICS_# Number of Pictures
· Type in the Number of Pictures of the Representative on the page—e.g. Condit=
T_CMPAGN Topics_Campaign
· Enter a 1 if the page discussed campaigns, enter a 2 if it did not—e.g. Condit’s page did not=2
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
T_LEGIS Topics_Legislation
· Enter a 1 if the page discussed legislation, enter a 2 if it did not—e.g. Condit’s page did =1
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
T_CMWORK Topics_Committee Work · Enter a 1 if the page discussed committee work, enter a 2 if it did not— e.g. Condit’s page did =1
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
257 T_ETHICS Topics_Ethics
· Enter a 1 if the page discussed ethical concerns, enter a 2 if it did not—e.g. Condit’s page did not=2—note, record “email tax hoax” under other
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
T_HEARING Topics_House Hearings
· Enter a 1 if the page discussed house hearings, enter a 2 if it did not—e.g. Condit’s page did not=2
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
T_PRESSR Topics_Press Releases · Enter a 1 if the page featured press releases, enter a 2 if it did not—e.g. Condit’s page did=1
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
RELEAS_# Number of Press Releases
· Type in the number of press releases on homepage--e.g. Condit=6
RELEAS_2 Number of Press Releases One Link Down from Homepage
· Type in the number of press releases one link down from homepage--e.g. Condit=25
258 T_PUBOPN Public Opinion · Enter a 1 if the page discussed public opinion issues, enter a 2 if it did not—e.g. Condit’s page did not=2
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
T_OTHER Other
· Type in any other issues—e.g. Condit—record “email tax hoax”
P_BUDGET Pol Issues_Budget
· Enter a 1 if the page discussed the budget, enter a 2 if it did not—e.g. Condit’s page did not=2
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
P_MNWGE Pol Issues_Minimum Wage
· Enter a 1 if the page discussed the minimum wage, enter a 2 if it did not— e.g. Condit’s page did not=2
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
P_TAXES Pol Issues_Taxes
· Enter a 1 if the page discussed taxes, enter a 2 if it did not—e.g. Condit’s page did =1
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
259 P_WELFAR Pol Issues_Welfare
· Enter a 1 if the page discussed welfare, enter a 2 if it did not—e.g. Condit’s page did not=2
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
P_JOBS Pol Issues_Jobs
· Enter a 1 if the page discussed jobs, enter a 2 if it did not—e.g. Condit’s page did not=2
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
P_EDUCAT Pol Issues_Education
· Enter a 1 if the page discussed education, enter a 2 if it did not—e.g. Condit’s page did not=2
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
P_HLTHCR Pol Issues_Health Care
· Enter a 1 if the page discussed health care, enter a 2 if it did not—e.g. Condit’s page did =1
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
260 P_SOCSEC Pol Issues_Social Security · Enter a 1 if the page discussed social security, enter a 2 if it did not—e.g. Condit’s page did not=2
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
P_ABORT Pol Issues_Abortion
· Enter a 1 if the page discussed abortion, enter a 2 if it did not—e.g. Condit’s page did not=2
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
P_ENVIRO Pol Issues_Environment
· Enter a 1 if the page discussed the environment, enter a 2 if it did not— e.g. Condit’s page did =1
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
P_FP Pol Issues_Foreign Policy
· Enter a 1 if the page discussed foreign policy, enter a 2 if it did not—e.g. Condit’s page did not=2
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
261 P_GAYISS Pol Issues_Gay and Lesbian Issues
· Enter a 1 if the page discussed gay/lesbian issues, enter a 2 if it did not— e.g. Condit’s page did not=2
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
P_AA Pol Issues_Affirmative Action
· Enter a 1 if the page discussed affirmative action, enter a 2 if it did not— e.g. Condit’s page did not=2
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
P_CRIME Pol Issues_Crime/Violence
· Enter a 1 if the page discussed crime/violence, enter a 2 if it did not—e.g. Condit’s page did =1
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
262 P_OTHER Pol Issues_Other
· Type in any other issue discussed on the page.
For variables S_1 – S_10, enter one of the following options:
Value Label 1.00 Welcome 2.00 Biography 3.00 Contact Member 4.00 Committee Assignments/Work 5.00 Legislation Information 6.00 Issues Link 7.00 Photos 8.00 Press Releases 9.00 Government Resources (flag, letters of rec, etc.) 10.00 Visit DC Information 11.00 Map 12.00 Web Links 13.00 About District Concerns 14.00 About State Concerns 15.00 About Local Concerns 16.00 Fun Links (For Fun) 17.00 Position Papers 18.00 Town Hall Meeting Information 19.00 Surveys 20.00 Public Opinion 21.00 Schedule (Member's Schedule) 22.00 U.S. House Site Link 23.00 Constituent Services 24.00 Multimedia 25.00 Speeches 26.00 Educational Materials 27.00 Guestbook 28.00 What's New 29.00 Party Link (including Blue Dog Democrats) 30.00 Kids Link 31.00 Government / Federal Problems 32.00 Member's Washington Office
263 33.00 House Hearings 34.00 Member's State Office 35.00 Privacy Statement 36.00 Job Opportunities (e.g. Internships, Pages, etc.) 37.00 Member's Voting Record 38.00 Email Update Sign-up 39.00 Staff 40.00 Government Links (e.g. Senate, Library of Congress, etc.) 96.00 Missing 98.00 Other 99.00 Nothing
MLTIMED1 Multi-Media
· Enter a 1 if the page featured multi-media, enter a 2 if it did not—e.g. Condit’s page did=1
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
MLTIMED2 Multi-Media (Describe) · Describe any multi-media aspects of the site—e.g., Condit’s blue dog democrat barks
INTRACT1 Interactivity
· Enter a 1 if the page featured interactivity, enter a 2 if it did not—e.g. Condit’s page did=1
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
INTRACT2 Interactivity (Describe)
· Describe any interactivity on the site—e.g. Condit—web search, generic email
264 RESALL Resource Allocation (Describe)
· Describe any resource allocation on the site
SELF Self-Presentation (Describe)
· Describe the nature of the self-presentation on the site—e.g. Condit used phrase “key power broker”
DCBEHAV Description of DC Behavior
· Describe the description of DC behavior—e.g. Condit makes reference to recent floor proceedings
UPDTELNK Is There a Last Updated link?
· Enter a 1 if the page featured a “last updated link,” enter a 2 if it did not— e.g. Condit=1
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
UPDATE Last Updated--Enter date
· Type in the date of the last update—e.g. Condit=06-04-01
COUNTER Is There a Counter?
· Enter a 1 if the page featured a “last updated link,” enter a 2 if it did not— e.g., Condit=1
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
COUNT Last Count--Enter "since" date if available
· Type in the last count and the date—e.g. Condit=68042 since 07/04/01 265 KIDS Link for Kids · Enter a 1 if the site featured a link for kids, enter a 2 if it did not—e.g. Condit=1
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
KIDS_2 Description of Kids' Page · Describe the kids' page—e.g. "Gary's page for Kids" features a wriggling pencil and typing computer with smiley faces
COMMENTS Comments
· Enter in any additional comments
EXAMPLE Example Page · Enter a 1 if the page is designated an Example Page, enter a 2 if it did not—e.g. Condit=1
Value Label 1 Yes 2 No
266 APPENDIX F: Use of Content Analysis in the Journal of Advertising During the Period 1981-1991 (Namjung et al. 1993)
Author(s) Measure(s) Used Context
Reid, Soley, & Percentage Agreement Replication in Wimmer (1981) Advertising Research
Bush, Hair, & Bush Percentage Agreement Animation in TV (1983) Advertising
Macklin & Kolbe Percentage Agreement Sex Role Stereotyping (1984)
Woodside & Glenesk Percentage Agreement Thought Processing of (1984) Advertising
Lill, Gross, & Peterson Chi-Square Test of Social Responsibility (1986) Homogeneity Themes
Soley & Kurzbard Not Mentioned Sex in Advertising (1986)
Feasley & Stuart (1987) Not Calculated at all Layout and Design
Swayne & Greco Percentage Agreement Role Portrayal of (1987) Seniors in TV Ads
Hong, Muderrisoglu, & Percentage Agreement & Cultural Differences in Zinkhan (1987) Correlation Coeffficient Advertising Expression
Yale & Gilly (1988) Scott's Pi & Percentage Trends in Advertising Agreement Research
267
Author(s) Measure(s) Used Context
Rice & Lu (1988) Percentage Agreement Chinese Magazine Advertisements
Shimp, Urbany, & Scott's Pi Framing and Camlin (1988) Characterization
Wilkes & Valencia Percentage Agreement Hispanics and Blacks in (1989) TV Commercials
Weinberger & Spotts Not Mentioned Humor in US and UK (1989) TV Commercials
Laczniak, Muehling, & Winer's ANOVA Message Involvement Grossbart (1989)
Laskey, Day, & Crask Percentage Agreement & Typology of (1989) Contingency Coefficient Commercial Message Types
Hill (1989) Percentage Agreement Voter Responses to Political Ads
James & Vanden-Bergh Cohen's Kappa Information Content (1990) Comparison
Tansey, Hyman, & Not Mentioned Cultural Themes in Zinkhan (1990) Brazilian & US Auto Advertisements
268
Author(s) Measure(s) Used Context
Ferguson, Kreshel, & Scott's Pi Sex Role Portrayals Tinkham (1990)
Muehling, Stoltman, & Percentage Agreement Impact of Comparative Grossbart (1990) Advertising
Severn, Belch, & Belch Percentage Agreement Effects of Sexual & (1990) Non-Sexual Advertising Appeals
269 APPENDIX G: Use of Content Analysis in the Journal of Advertising During the Period 1992-2002
Author(s) Measure(s) Used Context
Biswas, Olsen, & Carlet Percentage Agreement & U.S. and French Print (1992) Scott's Pi Advertising
Graham, Kamins, & Percentage Agreement German & Japanese Oetomo (1993) Print Advertising
Carlson, Grove, & Perrault's Pi Environmental Kangun (1993) Advertising Claims
Domzal & Kernan Percentage Agreement International Food & (1993) Fashion Advertising
Leigh (1994) Cohen's Kappa Figures of Speech in Print Ad Headlines
Calcott & Lee (1994) Percentage Agreement Animation in Television Ads
Olson (1995) Perrault's Pi How U.S. Magazines Portray Advertising
Kilbourne, Banerjee, & Not Mentioned "Green" Advertising Gulas, & Iyer (1995)
Murray & Murray Percentage Agreement Music in Advertising (1996)
270 Author(s) Measure(s) Used Context
Kolbe & Albanese Perrault's Pi Male Portrayals in Print (1996) Advertising
Taylor & Stearn (1997) Cohen's Kappa & Asian-Americans in Perrault's Pi Television Advertising
Huhmann & Brotherton Rust & Cooil's PRL Guilt Appeals in Print (1997) Advertising
Spotts, Weinberger, & Percentage Agreement Humor in Print Parsons (1997) Advertising
Turley & Kelley (1997) Percentage Agreement & Business-to-Business Perrault's Pi and Consumer Print Advertising
Ford, Vooli, Honeycutt, Percentage Agreement & Gender Portrayals In & Casey (1998) Rust & Cooil's PRL Japanese Print Ads
Browne (1998) Not Mentioned Gender Stereotypes in Children's Television Advertising
Alison, Benjamin, Percentage Agreement Children's Television Hoerrner, & Roe (1998) Advertising
271 Author(s) Measure(s) Used Context
Cho, Kwon, Gentry, Percentage Agreement Television Ads in the Sunkyn, & Kropp U.S. and Korea (1999)
Maynard & Taylor Percentage Agreement Girlish Images in U.S. (1999) and Japanese Print Ads
Stevenson & Swain Cohen's Kappa & Minorities in (1999) Perrault's Pi Advertising
Al-Olayan & Karande Percentage Agreement Print Ads in the U.S. (2000) and Arab World
Spears (2001) Percentage Agreement Promotional Offers
Ji & McNeal (2001) Perrault's Pi Children's Television Commercials in China and the U.S.
Lin (2001) Holsti's Coefficient Cultural Values in U.S. and Chinese Print Ads
Meirick (2002) Scott's Pi Negative and Comparative Political Advertising
Phillips & McQuarrie Perrault's Pi Rhetorical Style in (2002) Magazine Ads
272 Appendix H: Major Differences in 2001 and 2002 Legislative Sites
1. Thirty-four of the sites had been graphically redesigned.
2. Twenty-one sites added a “War on Terrorism” Banner linking to a Republican site which provided further information on terrorism.
3. Eighty-seven sites added new issues, but the majority added only one or two. Most of the added topics focused on current cultural issues such as Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Corporate Fraud/Accountability.
273 Appendix I: Accessibility E-mail to Candidates and Legislators
Email to Candidates
Greetings,
My name is Kristen Wilkerson and I'm a doctoral student from the University of Texas at Austin conducting dissertation research on Congressional Web sites. I was wondering if you would take a couple of minutes to answer the three short questions below; in return, I'll be happy to send you a copy of the study results if you would like. Please know that results of this study will be anonymous and recorded in the aggregate. Your response is very important to me, and I truly appreciate your time.
With Kindest Regards,
Kristen Wilkerson
QUESTIONS
1) Who designs your Web site?
2) Who is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the site?
3) On a scale of 1 to 5 (1=easy; 5=difficult), how easy is it to communicate with voters via e-mail?
274 Email to Legislator
Greetings,
My name is Kristen Wilkerson and I'm a doctoral student from the University of Texas at Austin conducting dissertation research on Congressional Web sites. I was wondering if you would take a couple of minutes to answer the three short questions below; in return, I'll be happy to send you a copy of the study results if you would like. Please know that results of this study will be anonymous and recorded in the aggregate. Your response is very important to me, and I truly appreciate your time.
With Kindest Regards,
Kristen Wilkerson
QUESTIONS
1) Who designs your Web site?
2) Who is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the site?
3) On a scale of 1 to 5 (1=easy; 5=difficult), how easy is it to communicate with citizens via e-mail?
275 APPENDIX J: 2001-2002 Expenditures of Senate and House General Election Campaigns (January 1, 2001 - November 25, 2002)
Number Receipts Number Receipts Senate 67 $281,870,092 House 798 $537,798,322
Democrats 31 $136,196,489 Democrats 393 $265,772,497 Incumbents 12 $70,613,212 Incumbents 190 $167,077,664 Challengers 13 $29,851,251 Challengers 158 $52,001,272 Open Seats 6 $35,732,026 Open Seats 45 $46,693,561
Republicans 36 $145,673,603 Republicans 405 $272,025,825 Incumbents 15 $49,806,425 Incumbents 199 $188,704,328 Challengers 15 $40,004,066 Challengers 161 $32,136,163 Open Seats 6 $55,863,112 Open Seats 45 $51,185,334
Total Expenditures Campaign Expenditures $819,668,414 Republican Expenditures $417,699,428 Democratic Expenditures $401,968,986 Incumbent Expenditures $476,201,629 Challenger Expenditures $153,992,752 Open Seat Expenditures $189,474,033
Incumbent Advantage Incumbent Advantage - Senate $50,564,320 Incumbent Advantage - House $271,644,557 Total Incumbent Advantage $322,208,877*
Source: www.fec.gov. Retrieved January 15, 2002. *This figure demonstrates that incumbents spend more than challengers.
276 References
Abernethy, A M., Gray, J.I. & Rotfeld, H.J. (1993). Combinations of creative elements in radio advertisements. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 15, 87-100.
Abernethy, A.M. & Franke, G.R. (1996). The information content of advertising: A meta-analysis. Journal of Advertising, 25, 1-17.
Abramowitz, A.I. (2000). Incumbency, campaign spending, and the decline of competition in House elections. The Journal of Politics, 53, 34-56.
Abramson, P.R., Aldrich, J.H. and Rohde, D.W. (1995). Change and continuity in the 1992 elections. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Adler, E.S., Gent, C.E. & Obermeyer, C.B. (1997). The home-style homepage: Legislator use of the World Wide Web for constituency contact. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
Aikens, S. & Koch, E. (1996). Building democracy online. Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine, 3.
Aldrich, J. (1995). Why parties? The origin and transformation of political parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Alexander, A., Benjamin, L.M., Hoernner, K. & Roe, D. (1998). We'll be back in a moment: A content analysis of advertisements in children's television in the 1950s. Journal of Advertising, 27, 1-9.
Al-Olayan, F. & Karande, K. (2000). A content analysis of magazine advertisements from the United States and the Arab World. Journal of Advertising, 29, 69-82.
Althaus, S.L. & Tewksbury, D. (2000). Patterns of Internet and traditional news media use in a networked community. Political Communication, 17, 21-45.
Ansolabehere, S. & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How attack ads shrink and polarize the electorate. New York: Free Press.
277 Ansolabehere, S. & Iyengar, S. (1995). Winning through advertising: It's all in the context. In J.A. Thurber & C.J. Nelson (Eds.), Campaigns and elections American style (pp. 101-111) Boulder, CO: Westburg Press.
Arensberg, C.M. & Niehoff, A.H. (1975). American cultural values. In J.P. Spradley & M.A. Rynkiewich (Eds.), The nacirema (pp. 363-377). Boston: Little, Brown. Arizona Secretary of State (2002). DC's political report. Retrieved February 16, 2003, from Arizona Secretary of State Web site http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2002/AZ02.htm Atkin, C., Bowen, L., Nayman, O. & Sheinkopf, K. (1973). Quality vs. quantity in televised political ads. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 209-224. Auer, E. (1976). Creative advertising students: How different? Journal of Advertising, 5, 5-10. Ault, A. & Jones, K. (1999). Three words Congress hates to hear: You've got mail. Retrieved June 10, 2002, from vote.com Web site http://www.vote.com/magazine/editorials/editorial1843752.phtml Austin, E. W. & Dong, Q. (1994). Source v. content effects on judgment of news believability. Journalism Quarterly, 71, 973-983. Bailey, D. (2002). The Y2K political explosion. Harvard International Journal for Press/Politics, 5, 86-88.
Ballotti, J. and Kaid, L.L. (2000). Examining verbal style in presidential campaign spots. Communication Studies, 51, 258-273.
Balz, D. (2003). Democrats pin 2004 hopes on turnout project. Washington Post, February 20, A11.
Banks, J.S. & Kiewiet, D.R. (1989). Explaining patterns of candidate competition in Congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science, 33, 997-1015.
Barber, B.R. (1997). The new telecommunications technology: Endless frontier or the end of democracy? Constellations 4, 208-228.
BBC. (2002). U.S. Congress drowns in e-mail. Retrieved August 10, 2002, from the BBC Web site http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2181381.stm
278 Beato, G. (2000). Learning from the Web. Business 2.0, March, 328-334.
Beckett, K. (1996). Culture and the politics of signification: The case of child sexual abuse. Social Problems, 43, 57-76.
Benoit, W.L. (1999). Seeing spots: A functional analysis of presidential television advertisements, 1952-1996. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Benoit, W.L. & Benoit, P.J. (2000). The virtual campaign: Presidential primary Web sites in campaign 2000. Retrieved June 6, 2002, from Rogue Communication Web site http://www.roguecom.com/roguescholar/benoit.html
Benson, T. W. (1994). The first e-mail election: Electronic networking and the Clinton campaign. In Smith, S.A. (Ed.), Bill Clinton: On stump, state, and stage. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Press, 315-341.
Benson, T. W. (1996). Rhetoric, civility, and community: Political debate on computer bulletin boards. Communication Quarterly, 44, 359-378.
Bentley College (2002). Bentley College study finds U.S. Senate campaign Web sites fail to meet needs of candidates and voters. Ascribe Higher Education News Service, February 27, p 1.
Bernick Jr., B. (2002). Web sites called political necessity for candidates. The Deseret News, August 6, B06.
Berman, D.R. & Yawn, M. (1998). Partisanship and support for propositions on the ballot: A state-level longitudinal study. Social Science Quarterly, 82, 408-19.
Bimber, B. (1997). The Internet and political participation: The 1996 election season. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington D.C.
Bimber, B. (1998). The Internet and political mobilization: Research note on the 1996 election season. Social Science Computer Review, 16, 391-401.
Bimber, B. (1999). The Internet and citizen communication with government: Does the medium matter? Political Communication, 16, 409-428.
Bimber, B. (2000). The study of information technology and civic engagement. Political Communication, 17, 329-333.
279 Bimber, B. (2001). Information and political engagement in America: The search for effects of information technology. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 53-68.
Birdsall, D. S., Muzzio, D., Taylor, H. & Krane, D. (1996). A new political marketplace: The Web snares voters. The Public Perspective, 7, 33-35.
Bond, J.R. & Fleisher, R. (2001). The polls: Partisanship and presidential performance evaluations. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 31, 529.
Bond, M.H. (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143-164.
Borrus, A., Gleckman, H., Yang, C. & Dwyer, P. (2001). High-tech's honeymoon on the Hill may be about to end. Businessweek, (November 13), 69.
Brack, A. (2001). The future of the online campaign: Participation. Campaigns & Elections, September, 17.
Browning, G. (1996). New media, old messages. Media Studies Journal, 10, 67- 74.
Browning, G. (1997). Updating electronic democracy. Database, June/July, 47-54.
Browning, G., Caldow, J., Fose, M., McShea, K. & Ronen, J. (2001). Congress online: Assessing and improving Capitol Hill Web sites. Retrieved April 17, 2002, from Congress Online Project Web site http://www.congressonlineproject.org/pfcongressonline2002.html#blocks
Bryant, J. (1995). Paid media advertising. In J.A. Thurber & C.J. Nelson (Eds.), Campaigns and elections American style (pp. 84-100). Boulder, CO: Westburg Press, 84-100.
Bucy, E. P., D’Angelo, P. & Newhagen, J.E. (1999). The engaged electorate: New media use as political participation. In L.L. Kaid & D.G. Bystrom (Eds.), The electronic election: perspectives on the 1996 campaign communication (pp. 335- 347). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Budge, I. (1996). The new challenge of direct democracy. Oxford: Polity Press.
Campaigns & Elections. (2001). Internet services and Web site consultants, February/March, 57.
280 Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., Miller, W.E. & Stokes, D.E. (1960) The American voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
Clinger, J.H. (1987). The clean campaign act of 1985: A rational solution to negative campaign advertising which the one hundredth congress should reconsider. Journal of Law and Politics, 3, 727-748.
Cochran, W. (1996). The boys on the 'net. American Journalism Review,18, 40-42.
Compaine, B. (2001). Re-examining the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Connell, M. (1997). New ways to reach voters and influence public opinion on the Internet. Campaigns & Elections, 18, 64-68.
Connell, M. (1998). Internet survival guide: Designing lively Web sites. Campaigns & Elections, September, 28.
Connell, M. (political Web consultant and panelist). (2002). Campaigning on the information highway [VHS Cassette]. Indianapolis, IN: C-SPAN.
Cooper, M.N. (2002). Does the digital divide still exist? Bush administration shrugs, but evidence says yes. Retrieved February 3, 2003, from Consumer Federation of America Web site http://www.consumerfed.org/DigitalDivideReport20020530.pdf
Corman, S.R. (1994). Use and users of a congressman's network information services. Internet Research, 4, 36-51.
Cornfield, M., Safdar, S. & Seiger, J. (1998). The top 10 things we're tired of seeing in candidate Web sites. Campaigns & Elections, 19, 26.
Cornfield, M. (2000). Six best practices for candidate sites. Campaigns & Elections, 21, 53.
Cornfield, M. (2001). Innovate! Integrate! Campaigns & Elections, 22, 41.
Cornfield, M. (2002). Open secrets, heavy traffic. Campaigns & Elections, 23, 48.
Cornfield, M. (2002). Sorting through constituent mail. Campaigns & Elections, February, 52.
281 Courtney, A.E. (1971). Communications research and advertising practice. Working paper, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Cover, A.D. (1977). One good term deserves another: The advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science, 21, 523-41.
Cundy, D.T. (1986). Political commercials and candidate image: The effect can be substantial. In L.L. Kaid, D. Nimmo & K.R. Sanders, K.R. (Eds.), New perspectives on political advertising (pp. 210-234). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dahlgren, P. (2000). The Internet and the democratization of civic culture. Political Communication, 17, 335-340.
D'Alessio, D. (2000). Adoption of the World Wide Web by American political candidates, 1996-1998. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 556-568.
Davis, R. (1999). The Web of politics: The Internet’s impact on the American political system. New York: Oxford University Press, 85-120; 168-186.
Delany, C. (2000). Campaigning online: Advice from the professionals. Retrieved May 20, 2002, from Political Information Web site http://www.politicalinformation.com/feature032100.html
Delli Carpini, M. & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
DeLoach, A. (1996). Waiting for democracy in cyberspace. Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine, 3.
Derbyshire, J. (2002). The age of Google. Retrieved December 5, 2002, from National Review Online Web site http://www.nationalreview.com
Dexter, L.A. (1970). Elite and specialized interviewing. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Diamond, E. & Bates, S. (1984). The spot: The rise of political advertising on television. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Diamond, E. & Bates, S. (1988). The spot: The rise of political advertising on television. (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
282 Diamond, E. & Bates, S. (1992). The spot: The rise of political advertising on television. (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dicken-Garcia, H. (1998). The Internet and continuing historical discourse. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 19-27.
Dongen, R. V. (1996). Buchanan brigades organize on the net: Grassroots go online. Roll Call, March 11, 21.
Dunham, R.S. (2000). Campaign 2000: How the candidates stack up -- on the Web. Retrieved January 22, 2003, from Business Week Web site http://www.businessweek.com/ebiz/9912/el1231.htm
Earnhart, K. (1998). The use of sexual appeals in advertising. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Ehrenhalt, A. (1992). The United States of ambition: Politicians, power, and the pursuit of office. New York: Random House.
Epler, P. (2002). Needle in the Hayworth. Congressional hopeful Craig Columbus charts a course for a brave new Arizona. Phoenix News Times, June 6.
Eveland, W.P. & Dunwoody, S. (2001). User control and structural isomorphism or disorientation and cognitive load? Learning from the Web versus print. Communication Research, 28, 48-78.
Faucheux, R. (1998). Better speeches would help. Campaigns & Elections, September, 7.
Faucheux, R. (1998). How campaigns are using the Internet: An exclusive nationwide survey. Campaigns & Elections, (September), 22-25.
Federal Election Commission (2002). FEC releases congressional fundraising summary. Retrieved October 1, 2002, from Federal Election Commission Web site http://www.fec.gov/press/20020909canstats/20020909canstat.html
Fenno, R. (1977). U.S. House members in their constituencies: An exploration. American Journal of Political Science, 71, 883-917.
Fielding, P. (political Web consultant and panelist). (2002). Campaigning on the information highway [VHS Cassette]. Indianapolis, IN: C-SPAN.
283 Fineman, H. (1997). Who needs Washington? Newsweek, January 27, 50-52.
Fisher, B., Margolis, M., & Resnick, D. (1996). Breaking ground on the virtual frontier: Surveying civic life on the Internet. The American Sociologist, 27, 11- 29.
Flanders, S. (2000). Political parties. Retrieved February 7, 2003, from Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia Web site http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/nbk/side/polparty.html
Foot, K. A. & Schneider, S.M. (2002). Online action in campaign 2000: An exploratory analysis of the U.S. political Web sphere. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 46, 222-244.
Fose, M. (2002). The Web goes political -- How political candidates and parties are using the Internet to provide information, raise money, mobilize supporters, and get out the vote. World and I, 17, 38.
Fox, S. (1984). The mirror makers: A history of American advertising and its creators. New York: William Morrow and Company.
Friedly, J. (1998). Fundraisers predict surge in Internet spending. The Hill, 18.
Gallop-Goodman, G. (2001). No more chads. American Demographics, January, 27.
Gans, C.B. (1985). Much ado about ads knocking candidates. Broadcasting, September 16, 64-72.
Garramone, G.M. (1983). Issue versus image orientation and effects of political advertising. Communication Research, 11, 59-76.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge. New York: Basic Books.
Gerard, G. (1998). The president is the ultimate pol. Retrieved October 22, 2002, from Indiana Times Union Web site http://www.timeswrsw.com/V020798.HTM
Gibson, R.K. & Ward, S.J. (2002). Virtual campaigning: Australian parties and the impact of the Internet. Australian Journal of Political Science, 37, 99-129.
Goetz, J. & LeCompte, M. (1981). Ethnographic research and the problem of data reduction. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 12, 51-70.
284 Goldenberg, E.N. & Traugott, M.W. (1984). Campaigning for Congress. Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 112.
Gordon, A. C. (1995). Journalism and the Internet. Media Studies Journal, 9, 173- 176.
Gwilliam, M.K. (1999). Politicians and the Internet. Unpublished Master's thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown.
Hacker, K.L., Howl, L., Scott, M. & Steiner, R. (1996). Uses of computer- mediated political communication in the 1992 presidential campaign: A content analysis of the Bush, Clinton and Perot computer lists. Communication Research Reports, 13, 138-146.
Hacker, K.L. (2002). Network democracy, political will, and the fourth world. Euricom, 1-39.
Hagan, J. D. (1993). Political opposition and foreign policy in comparative perspective. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Hall, E.T. (1959). The silent language. New York: Doubleday. Hall, M. (1997). One-to-one politics in cyberspace. Media Studies Journal, 11, p. 97. Hall, M. (1999). Clinton headlines at virtual town hall. USA Today, November 9, 6A. Harrison, A. (2000). Online voting moves closer to acceptance. Computerworld, October 30, 70. Hart, R.P. (2000). Campaign talk: Why elections are good for us. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Hellinger, D. (1998). Online editors lead revolution at Post. St. Louis Journalism Review, 28, 10-11.
Hill, K.A. & Hughes, J.E. (1998). Cyberpolitics: Citizen activism in the age of the Internet. Mahwah, NJ: Rowan & Littlefield.
Hirschman, E.C. (1986). Humanistic inquiry in marketing research: Philosophy, method, and criteria. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 237-49.
285 Hirschman, E.C. (1989). Role-based models of advertising creation and production. Journal of Advertising, 18, 42-53.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work- related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Holz, M.R., Ryans, J.K. & Shanklin, W.L. (1982). Agency/client relationships as seen by influentials on both sides. Journal of Advertising, 11, 37-44.
Huckshorn, R.J. & Spencer, R.C. (1971). The politics of defeat. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Hughes, M.A. & Garrett, D.E. (1990). Intercoder reliability estimation approaches in marketing: A generalizability theory framework for quantitative data. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 185-95.
Humke, R.G., Schmitt, R.C. & Grupp, S.E. (1975). Candidates, issues, and party in newspaper political advertisements. Journalism Quarterly, 56, 106-115.
Ireland, E. & Nash, P. (2001). Secrets of successful online fundraising: Tips for increasing donations. Campaigns & Elections, August, 47.
Ireland, E. & Nash, P. (2002). Announcement sites. Campaigns & Elections, July, 50.
Irvine, M. (1997) Web works. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Jacobson, G.C. (1980). Candidates, campaigns, and contexts in Congressional elections. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
Jacobson, G. (1990). The effects of campaign spending in House elections: New evidence for old arguments. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 334-62.
Jacques, W.W. & Ratzan, S.C. (1997). The Internet's World Wide Web and political accountability: New media coverage of the 1996 presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 1226-1237.
Jalonick, M.C. (2000). Greatest hits: GOP campaign Web sites. Campaigns & Elections, June, 56.
286 Jalonick, M.C. (2000). Issue-oriented candidate Web sites. Campaigns & Elections, August, 46.
Jalonick, M.C. (2001). 2002 U.S. Senate campaigns: Candidate biographies. Campaigns & Elections, April, 40.
Jalonick, M.C. (2001). How 2001 mayoral candidates learned from last year's Web sites. Campaigns & Elections, April, 40.
Jalonick, M.C. (2002). Consultant Q&A: Campaigning on the Internet. Campaigns & Elections, 23, 51-58.
Jamieson, K.H. (1984). Packaging the presidency: A history and criticism of presidential campaign advertising. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jamieson, K.H. (1992). Dirty politics: Deception, distraction, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jarvis, S.E. (1996). Presenting itself!: Congressional impression management on the World Wide Web. Paper presented at the Conference of the Speech Communication Association, San Diego, CA.
Jarvis, S.E. & Wilkerson, K. (2002). Congress on the Internet: Perceptions of virtual constituents on the Web sites of the U.S. House of Representatives, 1996 and 2001. Paper presented at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Johnson, D.W. (1999). The cyberspace election of the future. In B. Newman (Ed.), The Handbook of Political Marketing, (pp. 705-724) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Johnson, D.W., Thomas, R. & Butenhoff, L. (2002). Constituents and your Web site: What citizens want to see on congressional Web sites. Retrieved October 8, 2002, from Congress Online Project Web site http://www.congressonlineproject.org/focusgroups.html
Johnson, J.B., Joslyn, R.A. & Reynolds, H.T. (2001). Political Science Research Methods, 4th ed. Washington: CQ Press.
287 Johnson, T.J., Braima, M. & Sothirajah, J. (1999). Doing the traditional media sidestep: Comparing the effects of the Internet and other nontraditional media with traditional media in the 1996 presidential campaign. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 76, 99-123.
Jones, J.P. (1992). How much is enough? Getting the most from your money. New York: Lexington Books.
Jones, J. P. (1996). The aetherial Rush: Limbaugh's “Textual movement” on the Internet. Paper presented at the Conference of the Speech Communication Association, San Diego, CA.
Jones, K. & Ault, A. (1999). Congress junking your mail? Retrieved November 21, 2002, from vote.com Web site http://www.vote.com/magazine/editorials/editorial1847854.phtml
Joslyn, R.A. (1980). The content of political spot ads. Journalism Quarterly, 57, 92-98.
Kahle, L.R. (1983). Social values and social change: Adaptation to life in America. New York: Praeger.
Kahn, R.L. & Cannell, C.F. (1957). The dynamics of interviewing: Theory, technique, and cases. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kaid, L.L. & Sanders, K.R. (1978). Political television commercials: An experimental study of type and length. Communication Research, 5, 57-70.
Kaid, L.L. (1981). Political Advertising. In D. Nimmo & K.R. Sanders (Eds.), The handbook of political advertising (pp. 249-271). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kaid, L.L. & Davidson, D.K. (1986). Elements of videostyle: Candidate presentation through television advertising. In L.L. Kaid, D. Nimmo & K.R. Sanders (Eds.), New perspectives on political advertising (pp. 184-209). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Kaid, L.L. & Boydston, J. (1987). An experimental study of the effectiveness of negative political advertisements. Communication Quarterly, 35, 193-201.
288 Kaid, L.L., Leland, C.M. & Whitney, S. (1992). The impact of televised political ads: Evoking viewer responses in the 1988 presidential campaign. Southern Communication Journal, 57, 285-295.
Kaid. L. L. (1997). Effects of the television spots on image of Dole and Clinton. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 1085-1094.
Kaid, L.L. (2002). Political advertising and information seeking: Comparing exposure via traditional and Internet channels. Journal of Advertising, 31, 27-35.
Kardes, F. & Kalyanaram, G. (1992). Order-of-entry effects on consumer memory and judgment: An information integration perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 343-357.
Kassarjian, H.H. (1977). Content analysis and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 8-18.
Katz, D. (1954). Public opinion and propaganda: A book of readings. New York: Dryden Press.
Keating, J.P. & LaTane, B. (1976). Politicians on TV: The image is the message. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 116-132.
Kellerman, K. (1989). The negativity effect in interaction: It's all in your point of view. Human Communication Research, 16 (2), 147-183.
Kendrick, A., Slayden, D. & Broyles, S.J. (1996). Real worlds and ivory towers: A survey of top creative directors. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 51, 63-74.
Kern, M. (1997). Social capital and citizen interpretation of political ads, news, and Web site information in the 1996 presidential elections. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 1238-1249.
Kernell, S. (1997). Going public. (2nd Ed). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly.
King, D.C. (2002). Catching voters in the Web. Retrieved February 1, 2003 from Harvard University Web site http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.DKing.Academic.Ksg/dckfiles/voters-web.htm
289 Klassen, M.L., Jasper, C.R. & Schwartz, A.M. (1993). Men and women: Images of their relationships in magazine advertisements. Journal of Advertising Research, 33, 30-38.
Klebba, J.M. & Tierney, P. (1995). Advertising creativity: A review and empirical investigation of external evaluation, cognitive style, and self-perceptions of creativity. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 17, 33-51.
Klinenberg, E. & Perrin, A. (2000). Symbolic politics in the information age: The 1996 Republican presidential campaigns in cyberspace. Information Communication and Society, 3, 17-38.
Klotz, R. (1997). Positive spin: Senate campaigning on the Web. Political Science & Politics, 30, 482-486.
Klotz, R. (1998). Virtual criticism: Negative advertising on the Internet in the 1996 Senate races. Political Communication, 15, 347-365.
Kluckhohn, C. (1961). Analysis of values in behavioral science. In D.N. Barrett (Ed.), Values in America (pp. 17-45). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Kluckhohn, F.R. & Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Koch, K. (1998). Journalism under fire. CQ Researcher, 8, 1121.
Kolbe, R.H. & Burnett, M.S. (1991). Content-analysis research: An examination of applications with directives for improving research reliability and objectivity. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 243-250.
Kover, A.J. (1995). Copywriters' implicit theories of communication: An exploration. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 596-611.
Kover, A.J., James, W. & Sonner, B. (1997). To whom do advertising creatives write? An inferential answer. Journal of Advertising Research 37, 41-53.
Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Kvale, S. (1994). Ten standard objections to qualitative research interviews. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 25, 147-173.
290 Larsen, E. & Schneider, S.M. (2000). Ground zero: The war without the Web. Retrieved May 10, 2001, from netelection.org Web site http://netelection.org/commentary/2000037print.htm
Latimer, M.K. (1985). Policy issues and personal images in political advertising in a state election. Journalism Quarterly, 61, 776-784.
Lau, R.R. (1982). Negativity in political perception. Political Behavior, 4, 353- 377.
Lau, R.R. (1985). Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 119-138.
Lavery, R.M. (1993). The effect of bottom line pressure on advertising creativity. Proceedings of the 1993 American Academy of Advertising, 32.
Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1986). The art of asking why. New York: Advertising Research Foundation.
Leong, E., Huang, X. & Stanners, P.J. (1998). Comparing the effectiveness of the Web site with traditional media. Journal of Advertising Research, 38, 44-52.
Leuthold, D.A. (1968). Electioneering in a democracy. New York: Wiley.
Levine, M.A. (1995). Presidential campaigns and elections: Issues and images in the media age. Itasea, IL: Peacock Pubilshers.
Levine, P. (2002). Online campaigning and the public interest. In D.M. Anderson & M. Cornfield (Eds.), The civic Web: Online politics and democratic values (pp. 47-62). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J. & Bracken, C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28, 587-604.
Lynch, D. (2000). The Hill and the Web: Democracy goes digital...bit by bit. Retrieved December 1, 2002, from ABC News Web site http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/WiredWomen/wiredwomen990506.html
Mann, T.E. & Wolfinger, R.E. (1980). Candidates and parties in Congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 74, 617-32.
291 Margolis, M., Resnick, D. & Tu, C. (1997). Campaigning on the Internet: Parties and candidates on the World Wide Web. Press & Politics, 2, 59-78.
Martz, L. (1988). The smear campaign. Newsweek, October 31, 16-17.
Mark, D. (2002). Five campaign Web sites that break the mold. Campaigns & Elections, 23, 42-43.
Mark, D. (2002). The best of open-seat congressional campaign sites. Campaigns & Elections June, 52.
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (1995). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Matthews, W. (2000). The new soap box. Retrieved April 11, 2002, from Federal Computer Week.com Web site http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2000/0306/fcw-cover-03-06-00.asp
Matthews, W. (2001). Wiring Congress. Retrieved April 11, 2002, from Federal Computer Week.com Web site http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2001/0219/cov- wired-02-19-01.asp
Mauro, T. (1995). Reporters must learn to use the Internet wisely. The Bulletin of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, 765, 14.
Maynard, M.L. & Taylor, C.R. (1999). Girlish images across cultures: Analyzing Japanese versus U.S. Seventeen magazine ads. Journal of Advertising, 28, 39-48.
McCracken, G. (1986). Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 71-84.
McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
McGinniss, J. (1968). The selling of the president. New York: Trident Press.
McKeown, C.A. & Plowman, K.D. (1999). Reaching publics on the Web during the 1996 presidential campaign. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11, 321- 347.
292 McKinney, M.S. & Gaddie, K.C. (2000). The medium and the message: TV vs. Internet viewing of a presidential primary debate. Paper presented at the National Communication Association Convention, Seattle, WA.
Meadow, R.G. & Sigelman, L. (1982). Some effects and noneffects of campaign commercials. Political Behavior, 4, 163-175.
Meeks, B.N. (1997). Better democracy through technology. Communications of the ACM, 40, 75-78. Mehlman, B. (2001). Bush official serves as tech go-to guy. eWeek, 18, 25.
Middleburg, D. & Ross, S. (2000). Print media in cyberspace. Retrieved December 5, 2002, from Middleburg Online Web site http://www.middleberg.com/studies/print/default.cfm
Millum, T. (1975). Images of women: Advertising in women’s magazines. London: Chatto.
Mindich, D.T.Z. (1998). The future of the Internet: A historical perspective. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 7-8.
Mintz, J. (2000). McCain camp enjoys a big net advantage. Washington Post, February 9, A01.
Mondroski, M.M., Reid, L.N. & Russell, J.T. (1983). Agency creative decision making: A decision systems analysis. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 6, 57-69.
Moran, J.M. (1996). Debate plug gives Dole edge on Web. The Hartford Courant, October 8, A10.
Moriarty, S.E. & Vanden Bergh, B.G. (1984). Advertising creatives look at creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 18, 162-174.
Motluck, A. (1997). Click on the candidate. New Scientist, April 26, 26-27.
Muehling, D.D. & Kolbe, R.H. (1998). Comparison of children's and prime-time fine-print advertising disclosure practices. Journal of Advertising, 27, 37-48.
Muske, G. (2001). The digital divide: Does it exist and how does Oklahoma compare? Retrieved February 3, 2003, from Oklahoma State University Web site http://fcs.okstate.edu/publications/resource-update/03-01/pdf/frm1-2.pdf
293 Musso, J., Weare, C. & Hale, M. (2000). Designing Web technologies for local governance reform: Good management or good democracy? Political Communication, 17, 1-19.
Namjung, K., Kara, A., Laskey, H.A. & Seaton, F.B. (1993). A SAS MACRO for calculating intercoder agreement in content analysis. Journal of Advertising, 22, 17-28.
Noble, P. (1999). Using the Internet to bring new people into politics. Campaigns & Elections, August, 20, 50.
Norris, P. (1999). Who surfs? New technology, old voters and virtual democracy in the 1996 and 1998 U.S. elections. Paper presented at the 3rd annual meeting of the John F. Kennedy Visions of Governance for the 21st Century project, Bretton Woods, NH.
Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet in democratic societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Novotny, P. (2002). Local television, the World Wide Web, and the 2000 presidential election. Social Science Computer Review, February, 20, 58-72.
O'Guinn, T., Allen, C. & Semenik, R. (2000). Advertising. New York: South- Western College Publishing.
Ornstein, N. & Schenkenberg, A. (1996). The promise and perils of cyberdemocracy. The American Enterprise, 53-54.
Otnes, C., Spooner, E. & Treise, D.M. (1993). Advertising curriculum ideas from the 'new creatives'. Journalism Educator, 48, 9-17.
Otnes, C., Oviatt, A.A. & Treise, D.M. (1995). Views on advertising curricula from experienced creatives. Journalism Educator, 49, 21-30.
Oxford English Dictionary Online (1933 [1989]). Retrieved January 30, 2003, from Oxford English Dictionary Web site http://dictionary.oed.com/entrance.dtl
Paletz, D.L. (1999). The media in American politics: Contents and consequences. New York: Longman.
Parnes, S. J. (1975). Aha! In I. Taylor & J. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 224-248). Chicago: Aldine.
294 Parpis, E. (2002). Advertisers put on Sunday best. Retrieved February 10, 2003, from AdWeek Web site http://www.adweek.com
Patterson, I.E. & McClure, R. (1976). The unseeing eye: The myth of television power in national elections. New York: G.P. Putnam.
Perloff, R.M. & Kinsey, D. (1992). Political advertising as seen by consultants and journalists. Journal of Advertising Research, 32, 53-60.
Petersen, S. (2000). Online voting: Yes, and it counts! PC Week, January 3, 21.
Petrocik, J.R. (1995). Reporting campaigns. In J.A. Thurber & C.J. Nelson (Eds.), (pp. 126-137). Campaigns and elections American style. Boulder, CO: Westburg Press.
Pew Charitable Trusts (2002). Getting serious online. Retrieved October 2, 2002, from Pew Trusts Web site http://www.pewtrusts.com
Pew Research Center (2003). Political sites gain, but major news still dominant. Retrieved January 20, 2003, from Pew Research Center Web site http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=169
Popkin, S.L. (1991). The reasoning voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Puopolo, S. (2001). The Web and U.S. Senatorial campaigns. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 2030-2047.
Ratliff, D.E. (2002). Analytic induction as a qualitative research method of analysis. Retrieved October 9, 2002, from Don Ratliff Web site http://don.ratcliff.net/qual/analytic.html
Reid, L.N. & Rotfeld, H.J. (1976). Toward an associative model of advertising creativity. Journal of Advertising, 5, 24-29.
Reid, L.N. (1977). Are advertising educators good judges of creative talent? Journal of Advertising, 6, 4143.
Reid, L.N. (1978). Factors affecting creativity in generation of advertising. Journalism Quarterly, 55, 781-785.
295 Reid, L.N., King, K.W. & DeLorme, D.E. (1998). Top-level agency creatives look at advertising creativity then and now. Journal of Advertising, 27, 1-15.
Reider, R. (1996). Journalism in the time of change. American Journalism Review, 18, 6.
Resnik, A. & Stern, B.L. (1977). An analysis of information content in television advertising. Journal of Marketing, 41, 50-53.
Riffe, D., Lacy, S. & Fico, F.G. (1998). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Robbs, B. (1996). The advertising curriculum and the needs of creative students. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 50, 25-34.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press. Roper Center (2000). Attitudes toward government survey. Retrieved October 29, 2002, from Roper Center Web site http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu
Rotzoll, K.B. & Haefner, J.E. (1990). Advertising in contemporary society. Cincinnati: South-Western.
Sanders, D., Burton, J. & Kneeshaw, J. (2002). Identifying the true party identifiers: A question wording experiment. Party Politics, 8, 193-205.
Schmitt, E. (1997). Congress remains in touch on the Web. New York Times, November 24, D8.
Schneider, S.M. (2000). Counting votes, making sausage. Retrieved June 8, 2001, from netelection.org Web site http://netelection.org/commentary/2000041print.htm
Schneider, S.M. (2000). Super Tuesday: The night the Web stood still. Retrieved June 8, 2001, from netelection.org Web site http://netelection.org/commentary/2000011print.htm
Schneider, S.M. (2000). Web sites document TV ad claims. Retrieved June 8, 2001, from netelection.org Web site http://netelection.org/commentary/2000022print.htm
296 Schneider, S.M. (2000). What candidates should do on the Web. Retrieved June 8, 2001, from netelection.org Web site http://netelection.org/commentary/2000033.php3
Schorow, S. (2002). Online ballots not quite ready for prime time. The Boston Herald, November 5, 38.
Schroeder, C. M. (2001). Swinging back to the i-future; Focus must remain on ad potential. Advertising Age, May 28, 72.
Schudson, M. (1984). Advertising, the uneasy persuasion. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Schwoch, J. (1990). The American radio industry and its Latin American activities 1900-1939. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Scully, R. & Patterson, S.C. (2001). Ideology, partisanship, and decision-making in a contemporary American legislature. Party Politics, 7, 131-155.
Selnow, G. W. (1998). Electronic whistle-stops: The impact of the Internet on American politics. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Shapiro, A.L. (1998). New voices in cyberspace: The Net could become a vibrant alternative to the media oligopoly. Nation, 266, 36-38.
Shaw, D.R. (2002). How the Bush and Gore campaigns conceptualized and used the Internet in 2000. Journal of Political Marketing, 1, 39-66.
Sherr, S.A. (1999). Scenes from the political playground: An analysis of the symbolic use of children in presidential campaign advertising. Political Communication, 16, 45-59.
Sherrill, K. (1998). The dangers of nonpartisan elections to democracy. Social Policy, 28, 15-22.
Simon, R. (1998). Showtime: The American political circus and the race for the White House. New York: Random House.
Sivulka, J. (1998). Soap, sex, and cigarettes: A cultural history of American advertising. New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
297 Soley, L. and Kurzbard, G. (1986). Sex in advertising: A comparison of 1964 and 1984 magazine advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 15, 46-55.
Soley, L.S. & Reid, L.N. (1988). Taking it off: Are models in magazine ads wearing less? Journalism Quarterly, 65, 960-966.
Solomon, M.R. & Greenberg, L. (1993). Setting the stage: Collective selection in the stylistic context of commercials. Journal of Advertising, 22, 11-23.
Stephens, M. (1998). Which communication revolution is it, anyway? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 9-13.
Stern, B.B., Zinkhan, G.M. & Holbrook, M.B. (2002). The netvertising image: Netvertising image communication model (NICM) and construct definition. Journal of Advertising, 31, 12-27.
Stromer-Galley, J. (2000). Online interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of Communication, 50, 111-133.
Surlin, S.H. & Gordon, T.F. (1977). How values affect attitudes toward direct reference political advertising. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 89-98.
Swanson, D.L. (2000). The homologous evolution of political communication and civic engagement: Good news, bad news, and no news. Political Communication, 17, 409-414.
Sweeney, W. R. (1995). The principles of planning. In J.A. Thurber & C.J. Nelson (Eds.), (pp. 14-29). Campaigns and elections American style. Boulder, CO: Westburg Press.
Szalavitz, M. (1999). Can we become caught on the Web? Newsweek, December 6, 11.
Szuhaj, P.K. & Ledger, M.A. (2001). America clicks. Trust Magazine January.
Szymanski, D.M., Troy, L.C. & Bharadwaj, S.G. (1995). Order of entry and business performance: An empirical synthesis and reexamination. Journal Of Marketing, 59, 17-33.
Tankersley, J. (2002). Campaigns go online, but look like newbies. The Oregonian, October 11, B01.
298 Taylor, R.E., Hoy, M.G. & Haley, E. (1996). How French advertising professionals develop creative strategy. Journal of Advertising, 25, 1-13.
Theimer, S. (2002). Republicans post cash advantage. Retrieved April 28, 2003, from Charlotte Observer Web site http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/politics/4303846.htm
Theodorou, E. (2002). Illinois candidates not effectively using the Internet; Democrats lack numbers, Republicans lack functionality, says Bivings report. U.S. Newswire, 1.
Tinkham, S.F., Lane, W.R. & Leung, A. (1987). Conflict between account and creative personnel within the advertising agency: A field investigation. Proceedings of the 1987 American Academy of Advertising, 38-42.
Todorova, A. (2002). Inbox of tricks for sending a pitch. PR Newswire, July 22, 18.
Trent, J. & Friedenberg, R. (1995). Political campaign communication (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Turner, W. (2001). Lawmakers want to see funding plan in writing. Retrieved October 16, 2002, from Decatur Daily Web site http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/011115/plan.shtml
Ubois, J. (1995). Newt’s net: An interview with Don Jones, Newt Gingrich’s system integrator and the creator of the THOMAS server. Internet World, 6, 45-48.
U.S. House of Representatives. (2002). Campaign activity highlights. Retrieved February 6, 2003, from U.S. House Web site http://www.house.gov/ethics/Campaign_booklet.htm#_Toc528993012
Vance, D. (1982). Advertising creativity: How does a student's 'creative quotient' correlate with the student's 'creative productivity'? Journalism Educator, 38, 45- 48; 52.
Vanden Bergh, B.G., Reid, L.N. & Schorin, G.A. (1983). How many creative alternatives to generate. Journal of Advertising, 12, 46-49.
299 Vanden Bergh, B.G. (1984). Associative creative ability and student performance on writing assignments in different media. Proceedings of the 1984 American Academy of Advertising, 133-135.
Vanden Bergh, B.G., Smith, S.J. & Wicks, J.L. (1986). Internal agency relationships: Account services and creative personnel. Journal of Advertising, 15, 55-60.
Varoga, C. (1999). Should candidates use the Internet to raise money? Campaigns & Elections, September, 77.
Walker, J. (2002). The Internet brings new trends to media-PR relations. O'Dwyer's PR Services Report, May, 36.
Ward, I. (1995). Politics of the media. Melbourne: MacMillan.
Wayne, L. (2000). The 2000 campaign: The Internet; voter profiles selling briskly as privacy issues are raised. New York Times, September 9, 1A.
Weilbacher, W.M. (1993). Brand marketing. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books.
Weise, E. (2000). Not yet for the net, but new sites show great promise. Media Studies Journal, Winter, 36-41.
West, D.C. (1993). Cross-national creative personalities, processes, and agency philosophies. Journal of Advertising Research, 33, 53-62.
West, D.M. (1999). Lessons of a political science Webcaster. PS: Political Science and Politics, 732-733.
White, A. & Smith, B.L. (2001). Assessing advertising creativity using the creative product semantic scale. Journal of Advertising Research, 41, 27-34.
White, B. (2000). Internet jackpot fuels McCain's gamble. Washington Post, February 5, A08.
White, K. (2001). Poor process exacerbates budget quandary. Retrieved October 28, 2002, from Common Cause Web site http://www.commoncause.org/states/massachusetts/pr/Budget%20delay%2029%2 0Oct%2001.doc
300 Willis, D. (2000). The future of fundraising. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, January 1, 58, 28.
Wolff, J. (1975). Hermeneutic philosophy and the sociology of art. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Yeatts, T. (2000). 23 tips on how to make a state party Web site sizzle. Campaigns & Elections, 53.
Young, C.E. (2000). Creative differences between copywriters and art directors. Journal of Advertising Research, 40, 19-26.
Znaniecki, F. (1934). The method of sociology. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.
Zinkhan, G.M. (1993). Creativity in advertising: Creativity in the Journal of Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 22, 1-3.
301 VITA
Kristen Courtney Wilkerson was born in Fort Smith, Arkansas, on August 3, 1970, the daughter of Thomas Patrick Earnhart and Jo Courtney Earnhart. After completing her work at Southside High School in Fort Smith in May 1988, she entered the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. She received a Bachelor of Arts in May 1992 and a Master of Arts in May 1998 from the University of Arkansas, where she also served as an Academic Advisor for the Fulbright College of Arts & Sciences. In May 1995, she co-founded advertising/public relations agency Thompson, Earnhart & Associates in Fayetteville, where she worked for almost five years. In June 1999, she entered the University of Texas at Austin with the goal of obtaining a Ph.D. in Advertising. While at the University of Texas, she worked as a Teaching Assistant, served as Vice President of the University of Texas Advertising Council, and sat on an advisory committee whose primary purpose was to address the concerns of graduate students in the Department of Advertising. She is a member of the American Academy of Advertising.
Permanent address: 3403 Wheat Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29205
This dissertation was typed by the author.
302